Unless I’m part of an A/B test...
The term of art for "A/B testing" in the mental health industry is gaslighting.
The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
381–390 of 403 posts
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#382[deleted]
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#383Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27666455> (604 comments).
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other possible criticisms, they hold too much power. So much of the web is behind their walls, if let's say you couldn't access them or decided you didn't want to communicate with CF, huge portions of the web would become off limits.
What's the alternative? As a basic website owner, should we just ditch CDNs and anti-DDOS protection?
Unfortunately, as in math, there are such things as unsolvable problems. Unless and until everyone's running a bunch of formally verified OSes that can't be converted to botnets you have to pick your poison. I won't pretend it's a solution though, it's trading one problem for another. Who can say which is worse.
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the alternative? As a basic website owner, should we just ditch CDNs and anti-DDOS protection?
Unfortunately, as in math, there are such things as unsolvable problems. Unless and until everyone's running a bunch of formally verified OSes that can't be converted to botnets you have to pick your poison. I won't pretend it's a solution though, it's trading one problem for another. Who can say which is worse.
How big is the threat, though? What can even happen if someone takes control over Cloudflare? What if Cloudflare is malicious, what could they even do before people catch on it?
I agree centralization is bad, but with Cloudflare (compared to Google), their main business model is this specific service (CDN, security, privacy, etc.). If they don't accomplish it, their business will die.
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, as in math, there are such things as unsolvable problems. Unless and until everyone's running a bunch of formally verified OSes that can't be converted to botnets you have to pick your poison. I won't pretend it's a solution though, it's trading one problem for another. Who can say which is worse.
How big is the threat, though? What can even happen if someone takes control over Cloudflare? What if Cloudflare is malicious, what could they even do before people catch on it? I agree centralization is bad, but with Cloudflare (compared to Google), their main business model is this specific service (CDN, security, privacy, etc.). If they don't accomplish it, their business will die.
I wasn't even really thinking about the security issue on their side. My concern is they end up in cahoots with the government who gives them a list of political dissidents who then get blacklisted from half the web which people will jump to defend with "They're a private company, they can do what they want!"
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is definitely the correct approach. I’m always surprised by just how insidious these private platforms are. Eg I’ve seen signs in a local forest saying “dangerous work” would be announced only on the Forestry England facebook page. Similarly, I’ve seen government bodies try to use WhatsApp as their official communication channel. I’m not sure how publicly funded bodies sign off on exclusively using private platf…
Similarly, I’ve seen government bodies try to use WhatsApp as their official communication channel. There is at least one college that I know of, where every announcement is made on Facebook, and Facebook only. Students are forced to have a FB account. It is just pure laziness. There are some governments (Europe mostly) that are attempting legislation (banning Google Analytics on gov sites, for example). But law is s…
> It is just pure laziness.
You've hit the nail on the head there. There's no great conspiracy here, it's just lazy people using what they know to get the job done.
The great shame is that IMHO it's a terrible outcome. I don't want a Facebook account but I still want to be able to take part in society on open platforms.
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except now you have to be logged in to a google account in order for that setting to work...
The automatic "sign in with Google" prompt only shows up if you're already signed-in. So if you're not signed-in, it doesn't (and can't) display - because there's no logged-in session, there's no existing user. In case you're misunderstanding what we're discussing here - the feature in question is https://developers.google.com/identity/gsi/web/guides/offeri... . If you use extensions like Privacy Badger or other ads/…
That is incorrect. I am never logged into Google when browsing the web, and I see this goddamn popup on almost every website I visit.
It looks slightly different than the one in your link, but no less annoying: https://i.imgur.com/GvIExQT.png
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, the same is true of anything written. But much of that has shifted to digital media because it's more convenient. A print shop has much higher latency and change costs. The newer restaurants in my neighborhood mostly use flexible ways of conveying prices. QR codes, menus on big screens, chalkboards, or computer-printed paper menus on disposable paper.
More convenient for the restaurant, less convenient for the customer. This defeats the whole purpose of a restaurant, which is to be convenient. If I wanted to be inconvenienced I would just buy groceries and cook them at home.
I don't think it's "the customer". I think it's you and some other folks who are in a relatively narrow customer niche who are very big on convenience and grew up on paper menus, making those feel convenient.
I'd add that the whole purpose of a restaurant isn't convenience for the customer. That's the purpose of going there for many customers, which should of course be honored. But the purpose of them for restaurateurs are generally on the order of "make an enjoyable living", which involves convenience for them too. As with almost anything social, the outcome must balance the desires of all involved.
Re: The 'fuck you' pattern (2021)
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, they have to. Nope. They chose to. Do some incentives encourage them in this direction? Sure. That's different than them "having to". Actual people are doing this, and they actually made choices toward maximum exploitation of human weakness. They are morally responsible for those choices. I agree that people should leave those platforms and move to open solutions. That would be some good choice-making. But tha…
As I understand it, they have to. Google 'Fiduciary Duty'.
Imagine that I had already read about that and still wrote what I wrote. What might you take from that?