I don't deny that.
People switched to that which was the best. FF was so horrendously cluttered usability-wise and didn't improve for several years after Chrome came out. It was better than IE at the time, but that didn't take much.
I moved to Chrome because it was better out of the box, on day 1. I didn't switch and then Chrome ended up being better down the line. FF and IE never realised that the appearance of speed is as important as actual speed. Nor did they realise that a clean, consistent, intuitive UI is paramount.
If you're going to pretend that people should stick with the worse product because a better one might turn out evil down the line then you're fooling yourself.
The only thing that had to happen was that FF, IE, or anyone, came by with a better alternative to Chrome. No one did.
This is not the fault of the user base.
You're right. Pretending that FF and IE were doing a good job would've made for a better web today, and we shouldn't have levelled actual real substantial criticism at them for that reason.
Chrome did infinitely better than both for a long time.
They built the framework to take over the web by actually doing a good job first, unlike the other two players.
That's crazy. Unlimited here is uncapped speeds with a soft fair use download ceiling of 1TB a month (last I checked, which is quite a while ago). If you surpass that repeatedly you're asked to tone it down, and if you continue to download that much, you'll have to pay more for a higher cap.
I agree that it looks better, but a tiny bit better. The original has zero effort put in though, where the new version is trying. If you try and come up with something this bad (or this slight of an improvement), it's better to not try at all - imo.
"Without China’s deceit and WHO’s solicitude for Beijing, the outbreak might have been more limited, and the world at the very least would have had more time to react to the virus."
"So, the WHO endorsed China’s narrative during the crucial early days of its cover-up."
"Despite the emerging consensus that China has lied about its number of cases and deaths, and despite China’s refusal to share key information about the virus, WHO hasn’t said a discouraging word about China’s actions."
That's directly in the article. Purporting that the article doesn't say anything is somewhat a stretch.
Maybe you don't subscribe to what it's saying and find its sources lacking - as it is an opinion piece.
Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
If you're looking for insights on yourself: then being asked a question, to have the answer you gave fed back to you with a pretense of insightfulness will easily be outcompeted by staring at a mirror for 10 minutes.
If you're trying to generate complementary group dynamics: sort people by interests and spread them out.
If you're trying to generate efficient groups: sort people by interests and don't spread them out.
Literally the worst kind of systematising will go toe-to-toe with MB.
Damn that's super interesting.
The test itself is useless, but self-identifying into a the scheme accompanied with the aforementioned useless test helps you find likeminded people. People you allegedly find that you work better with.
It's a shame that there is no way to self-identify into anything else, and find like-minded people, without relying on a thoroughly antiquated pseudoscientific bullshit classification system.
My point is this:
Praising MB for letting you self-categorise into a scheme that, on the surface, generates better team dynamics than no system at all is giving credit to systematising. It is not giving credit to MB.
Try this self-categorisation system out, and see if it out-performs no system: knowledgeable / unknowledgeable.
Oh, what reason is that?
Would anyone have done the same if they shared his MB personality type?
Since the answer to the above probably is no, how does MB help you identify when an ENTP is going to be a John McAfee and when they're not?