And yet... haven't you noticed that supermarkets in posher areas are less likely to have the coin slot? (Asda and Tesco are two whose policy varies by location).
And in supermarkets with large car parks there are return stations all over the car park. Which means you still need to pay trolley herders...
I am not in America, I can't therefore share your observation. But it is not news that crime of all sorts is lower in "posher areas". Of course it is. What's the point you want to go for?
For me the "minimal set" of rules that can still be called Agile is a mechanism for measurement, and a retrospective. You use the retrospective to perturb the process, and you use the measurement to decide whether that perturbation was a success or a failure.
That's it - old school cybernetics. If you used feedback loops to iterate towards a successful process, you're doing Agile. If there are parts of the process that are off-limits to you (eg management insists on doorstepping your standups) then you're not doing Agile.
Of course, we "prime the pump" somewhat by throwing in a bunch of extra rules at the beginning that we know from experience are likely to work, but I think that Agile, done right, has a lot in common with Nomic.
If your purpose is to allow the device to be used when it doesn't have your full attention - like a car radio, for example - I don't think that's a good solution.
I have a phone with a knurled power button, and a smooth flashlight button next to it. It's a minor example, but dynamically remapping those buttons would destroy a lot of their utility for me.
That is false analogy as you're opposing fixed-function devices - lamp and power - to a device which in principle has an unlimited number of functions. Even if it could also contains an unlimited number of buttons this would still not make it usable in situations where the user has to divide his attention between the device and some other task of higher importance like flying the aircraft and keeping sight of the opponent. That is just why they came up with this interface since it combines the advantages of haptic memory - button three on the left side does this in that situation - with unlimited functionality. All that it takes is a sure way to get the device in 'that situation' and a modicum of experience. A touch screen will never have this possibility as the user always needs to look at the screen to guide the digit to the target - unless the whole screen is turned into a single button of course.
Buttons on the side of the screen are not the correct user interface for all activities, as an example they would be inconvenient for browsing the web [1] and useless to sign for delivery of a parcel.
[1] ...but not impossible: number the links on the screen as if they are footnotes, number the buttons on the side, click the button which lies next to the desired number. If there are more links than there are buttons the last button can be used to select the next set of numbers. If there are zillions of links the last two buttons can be used to page through sets of numbers. Inconvenient, maybe, but it would work.
Years ago, a Windows virus slipped on to three family machines I'm the go-to-guy for, due to Spotify using IE to display ads, and not vetting its ads properly.
My answer was two-fold - never use Spotify, and always use an ad-blocker.
Ad blockers are mandatory on my parents computers. They can’t distinguish between what is or isn’t an ad (not speaking specifically of Spotify display ads.)
I feel like I hold an opinion no one else reading hacker news has, I believe website owners should be able to deliver ads and website visitors should be able to block them.
I'm with you. Spotify can serve ads if they want. Users can block the ads if they want. Spotify can block any users (unless they are paying, then it becomes another issue) if they want.
That being said I also think Spotify (and other sites) should be held liable if they serve malware through their ads.
I feel like websites should be able to run clearly labeled ads that are not trying to pretend to be anything but an ad.
I also feel like paid for articles should be clearly labeled as such and not hoping people will not notice the review/write up isn't just an ad in sheep's clothing.
I get it. A website needs to make money in order to stay in business delivering "free" content. Why does it have to be a game? Commercials/ads on television are not hidden. We accept that in order to bring broadcast television without a BBC style licensing fee, the broadcasters make money selling air time to advertisers. Sure, some product placement occurs in some of the programming, but that's up to the producers and not the broadcasters.
Thing is, I had that all set up! I'd deleted all the IE icons! Spotify did an end-run around all my precautions, because there was basically no way to remove IE from the OS, and any app that wanted to use it could.
I've pretty much always paid for Spotify, and from what I can remember when they first started all of their ads were "radio" ads. How were they using IE to display their ads? Did they introduce pop-ups?
Putting aside the difficulty of building that database of true facts, and of parsing unknown facts out of English text, that solution feels like it's inviting an arms race. I can write a bunch of uncontroversial "true" facts into an article containing one or two false facts.
Diluting lies with verifiable but only tangentially related truths is a well-established tactic to fooling humans as well.
Someone with an agenda in the symbolic vs statistic AI question could take this parallel as an example of how close ontology-based AI approaches are to the way humans think. And then someone with the opposite agenda would point out that the example is all hypothetical.
"Use a bouncer" might be the answer there. All engineering is compromise, and needing a bit more compromise to support legacy applications is not unreasonable.
(In fact, why are you running a stream-oriented application over such an unreliable connection at all?)
My XMPP client works perfectly on my Android phone. Prompt and reliable notifications of new messages. Better than most "Push Message" based clients I've used for other chat services.
It's consistently the last in battery usage as well.
Honestly I don't need the OS to protect me from poorly engineered apps, I just need it to correctly blame the apps so I know which ones to stop using.
>Honestly I don't need the OS to protect me from poorly engineered apps, I just need it to correctly blame the apps so I know which ones to stop using.
No, but the other 6 billion people on the planet do.
The "which apps are using battery" feature is easily useable by novice users.
However most phone vendors incorrectly assume "background connections" will drain battery life despite evidence to the contrary.
Phone vendors have a vested interest though in forcing developers to use their proprietary "push" feature for syncing to phones, they say it's for "battery life" but really its about vendor lock in.
A well engineered app can sync over its own TCP connection just fine and not hurt battery life, but then such an app can work on any device, not just blessed Android builds that have access to GCM.
Every modern phone today will give you a list of the apps that take the most juice, and yet somehow for some reason people still install facebook. We might need to protect users from themselves.
Or users could start holding facebook accountable for shitty battery life.
I don't understand why phone manufacturers need to add features to protect facebook users from facebook. facebook has the money to build an app that isn't shit.
And in supermarkets with large car parks there are return stations all over the car park. Which means you still need to pay trolley herders...