> You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like reaching out to the radio.
Aside from others' comments that one needn't look at buttons & knobs one has memorized, also:
1) one does not need to look as long at buttons and knobs as a screen to locate the desired control, because they do not change position. One also never needs to navigate a menu to perform a basic task. The closest most come is having a button that cycles AM/FM and channel presets.
2) it's possible to combine the fixed-location advantage of buttons and knobs with visual and tactile differentiation that reduces or eliminates the need to look at the controls even further. Some cars do this, but a really great example is the Nintendo Gamecube controller, which was clearly designed by someone who'd watched a young child try to remember what all the buttons on earlier consoles (SNES, N64, Playstation, perhaps) were used for. Size differentiation, most-used buttons in the most-accessible positions, larger, and highlighted by color, less-used ones smaller with diminishing vividness of color the less-important they were. A clear hierarchy of importance differentiated by color, size, shape, and feel. Auto makers don't ever fully embrace this because it results in a UI that doesn't look they way they want it to, but for maximum safety, they should.
A very, very consistent touchscreen UI could use some of this to great effect to reduce the harm that they cause, but they'd have to almost never screw with placement, appearance, or behavior of UI elements, all of which would need to be perfectly consistent and just about never change, which in practice probably means never receiving updates because there aren't a lot of teams that can resist fiddling with looks & behavior (this is a problem that plagues all web and frequently-updated software, and if you don't think it's a big one or causing some serious irritation and reduced-utility in computing in the wild then try watching someone who's not extremely "computer savvy" use their computer or phone for a while). They'd also need to radically simplify their UIs and work very hard on reducing latency and improving interaction accuracy (touch, then nothing happens for a second or two, is extremely confusing to non-computer-nerds, and it's 100x worse if it's not consistently precisely that unresponsive—sometimes instant, sometimes 1s delay, sometimes 5s delay, is the absolute worst way a UI can behave)
I doubt anything on screen can affect flight during lift-off or re-entry. Anything it might had damn well better be locked-out anyway. Lift off's automated and I'd think any significant failure of that automation would be a cue to abort (physical control for that); as for re-entry, by the time you're deep enough in atmosphere that things are vibrating you're really just falling with style, and there's no "flying" to do nor anything to control.
1) concern that prices online are higher so the delivery option's more expensive than it looks (food delivery services do this),
2) concern that some or all sale prices won't be used online—a lot of my shopping past my immediate needs consists of checking the canned and frozen sections for any actually good sales.
Yeah, ads, shelf placement. Marketing. No interaction with a salesperson. I take them as a really strong signal to walk away from whatever they’re selling. Ditto any direct communication that appears personalized. Cold calls. Hell even unexpected calls from my bank trying to sell me something or “check in”. No, no, no if you’re talking to me you want something and there’s nothing I want to give you so, bye, and even if I think no maybe I do want that I’ll just hang up faster because you’re (maybe) a pro so I can’t trust any of this—if I didn’t initiate the communication, I don’t need it, so, bye.
Actually, I take that back: recruiters sell to me quite a bit. Though they’re trying to convince someone else to give us both money, not me to give them money, so that’s a bit different in that I’m not purchasing anything they’re “selling”.
Almost nothing I repeat-buy is sold to me by a salesperson. Is there marketing? Sure. Salesperson? No. In fact having a salesperson involved almost always means it’s something unwanted or unpleasant (door-to-door window salesmen, cars) and I’m inclined to avoid them and shop on my own if it’s an option—I figure if a place is paying salesmen, I’m paying those salesmen if I buy from them, and I’d rather keep that money, and besides I don’t want to spend my time playing Which Pop-Sales Book Did You Read Last with Jim and his “salesman of the month, April 2013” plaque and mass-produced golf art.
B2B sales are different but incentives there aren’t the same as for individuals—I might take more sales pitches in private life if someone was paying me to do it, it wasn’t my money on the line, and so on.
> When was the last time you plugged your phone into anything except to charge? And when was the last time you needed to charge it and listen to music at the same time?
It's been a while, because I dropped my adapter down somewhere in the center console of my car, past the hand brake, so it's gone. I've been burning CDs instead. A CD burner only costs about as much as 3 of those adapters and the media's dirt cheap.
> The end does not justify the means. Forcibly removing someone's money and transferring it to another person can never be justified. Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.
Unrelatedly, I have also proven beyond a doubt that Ray Charles is God.
I'm tentatively a UBI fan, but just switching to single-payer healthcare would do a lot of that. So much damn bureaucracy, public and private, for that. I think the public side's under-accounted-for, actually—so many government agencies end up having to deal with health insurance crap for one reason or another.
Some would remain for private supplemental plans or whatever, but 90+% of that work would just go away. Plus all those uncompensated hours individuals spend fucking with insurance and medical provider billing departments.
Having close family nearby is worth a hell of a lot of money by non-FAANG-wage standards. Hundreds to thousands of dollars a year in saved vehicle and equipment rentals or purchases, Ubers (car breaks down, need a ride to work), and so on. If you've got kids and have some nearby family happy to provide child care, we're talking hundreds a year in babysitters on the low end to many thousands if they can replace daycare, before/afterschool care, that kind of thing. That's a lot of money to most people.
Aside from others' comments that one needn't look at buttons & knobs one has memorized, also:
1) one does not need to look as long at buttons and knobs as a screen to locate the desired control, because they do not change position. One also never needs to navigate a menu to perform a basic task. The closest most come is having a button that cycles AM/FM and channel presets.
2) it's possible to combine the fixed-location advantage of buttons and knobs with visual and tactile differentiation that reduces or eliminates the need to look at the controls even further. Some cars do this, but a really great example is the Nintendo Gamecube controller, which was clearly designed by someone who'd watched a young child try to remember what all the buttons on earlier consoles (SNES, N64, Playstation, perhaps) were used for. Size differentiation, most-used buttons in the most-accessible positions, larger, and highlighted by color, less-used ones smaller with diminishing vividness of color the less-important they were. A clear hierarchy of importance differentiated by color, size, shape, and feel. Auto makers don't ever fully embrace this because it results in a UI that doesn't look they way they want it to, but for maximum safety, they should.
A very, very consistent touchscreen UI could use some of this to great effect to reduce the harm that they cause, but they'd have to almost never screw with placement, appearance, or behavior of UI elements, all of which would need to be perfectly consistent and just about never change, which in practice probably means never receiving updates because there aren't a lot of teams that can resist fiddling with looks & behavior (this is a problem that plagues all web and frequently-updated software, and if you don't think it's a big one or causing some serious irritation and reduced-utility in computing in the wild then try watching someone who's not extremely "computer savvy" use their computer or phone for a while). They'd also need to radically simplify their UIs and work very hard on reducing latency and improving interaction accuracy (touch, then nothing happens for a second or two, is extremely confusing to non-computer-nerds, and it's 100x worse if it's not consistently precisely that unresponsive—sometimes instant, sometimes 1s delay, sometimes 5s delay, is the absolute worst way a UI can behave)