Well, this is also how casinos work. Games are invented so that asymptotically, the gamblers will, on average, loose money.
Insurance companies achieve the same thing by setting your premiums according to whatever they assess the risk to be. Again, asymptotically, people pay more in insurance premiums than the insurer pays out.
You've identified a difference in motive between recreational gambling and insurance, not a mechanical difference. The woman in this article had different motives to the usual insurance customer.
The point is that one party says to the other "I will give you $X once a month, and if event E doesn't happen in that month, you get to keep this money, otherwise you must give me $Y (s.t.Y >> X)".
You can replace E with "my house burning down" or "The red team wins". In either case, I would call this a bet.
Insurance is just a specific type of gambling where you do it because E is bad and you want to be safe in case it does happen.
Well, insurance is just gambling with extra steps. Usually, you bet on something bad happening like your house getting burgled or your flight getting delayed, and the insurance company takes you up on that bet.
In a very abstract way there's not much difference between this and betting on sports.
I haven't got my config to hand, but essentially I've binded leader-y and leader-p to copy and paste respectively both using the system clipboard. Since doing that tmux has been so much more useful to me.
I might be a little late to the party here, but I don't entirely agree with him.
What I do agree with: UIs have gotten worse on the usability front, this is undeniable. Each application does its own thing when it comes to layout, and each app is also subject to change so not only do new users struggle to find where a button is, but experienced users have to re learn the UI. I also agree that a lot of the bad changes to the desktop come from mobile. Something that works on mobile because of the small screen, limited horizontal space, and inaccurate input method will inherently not be the most efficient on a usually large wide-screen device with very precise input methods. There is also a large element of sacrificing usability for aesthetics which doesn't help.
What I don't agree with: I don't think we had ever reached a stage where we nailed usability. The "golden age" he talks about, with the file, edit, view menus weren't all that great. I remember using word 2003 and having to click through each menu and reading each entry one by one to find the option I needed because it wasn't obvious where it should live. The one advantage this system had was that every app used it and so everyone understood the paradigm, which is arguably a bigger factor to usability than the actual design.
He also makes it seem like (although I don't think he argues this point) every new innovation in UIs past a certain point were bad. But he also gives a counter example, the bookmark bar. Older web browsers didn't have this feature, it was something that came later. Some wizz kid one day implemented it and this feature happened to stick. We haven't solved UIs yet, and so we have to try new things in order to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Finally, I don't think the most important thing with many UIs is how easy it is for a new user to understand. Most people would agree that Vim has a great interface, but it just takes a while to learn it. This goes for a lot of specialist and professional applications, I'd prefer it to be designed to be useful for the veteran user, not the newbie, but with good documentation to make the learning as easy as possible.
Santander in the UK does this too. You can tell because they only ask for 3 characters out of your password whenever you log in. What's ironic is that whoever did that propably thought they were being super clever.
I kind of see where they're coming from with this one, although I don't think it's true. The definitions of trivial and correct can be moved to fit whatever they're trying to say.
Rephrasing it as something like it's incredibly difficult to write a large piece of software with no bugs makes more sense. And I think for most organisations it may as well be impossible.
Insurance companies achieve the same thing by setting your premiums according to whatever they assess the risk to be. Again, asymptotically, people pay more in insurance premiums than the insurer pays out.
The house always wins.