Numbers don't tell much. You make a web page, say an interactive news article, and it's read (i.e. viewed top to bottom, but knowing even this is very hard, still let's assume that we can know) a hundred thousand times since it was published. What does this tell? That the interactive design helped make people read the article? How do you know if people would've read it anyways if it was a static HTML file, or just a normal page like others? How do you know people actually liked the design and did not just ignore it focusing on content? How do you know people came to play with the interface instead of reading the actual article? How do you know what percentage of those views are from people restoring their tabs?
If all you want is to say "Hey I got a hundred thousand views, put your ads here!", than that's useful. But if you really want to know if users are content or they care, those numbers are just mute. But knowing whether users really care or not can lead you to better, cheaper design decisions.
I guess Deck Network was an example of that. Most of the 5-6 ads I intentionally clicked ever was theirs. There were also similar networks like Carbon.
Yeah certainly, then later we can port public signeage to JSON too. {"prohibition": {"act": "pissing", "message": "Please do not urinate on the wall", "code": 1232}}.
Live Bookmarks has a very weird UI. I have upwards of 90 feeds currently, and it's simply impractical for me to check each one of them manually to see if there is soemthing new.
That'll probably die out as people understand that nobody gives a flying fuck to all that silly evil sorcery, except the guys who made them. The way analytics works today, most web publishers are basically living in a bubble that distorts the image of the outer world.
Reading the first sentences I thought that'd become that weird semi-philosophical speech on death which you hear from some people in funerals. Internet is too big to digest, and in a blog or comment there is not much things which can prove you that the writer has some authority on what he's saying, whereas the name of a known scientist on an actual paper book that costs money to print is authority.
I really don't get why they can't put the browser they like as the defaultone into their OS. Not that I'm an MS apologetic (I don't really use anything MS since time immemorial) but it seems silly to me, frankly.
I only said that it's not open source, and did not say anything against it and its being proprietary. And AFAIK github only allows public repos if they're open source, I mentioned that. Read the thread.
The source is there but it's not free nor open source. See the license. I don't know if they're allowed to put such licensed code on GitHub as a public repo.
I couldn't care less. My employer can do whatever he wants with the mad people like I named, but if he does anything other than firing them, I go, don't even think a second.
I don't want to work with a nazi, or with a racist, or with a fundamentalist zealot. I believe it's absolutely okay to get rid of these people in a company, as work is a social environment, no matter the level of professionalism. And also they may cause harm to the organisations they're part of.
> Good parents can raise their children correctly even with $bad_stuff present around them, that was the point I was trying to make.
I concur. But the internet exposure of kids is mostly not governed by parents. They either are alone with the connected device in their rooms, away from them, or with a mobile device out of their home. The best the parents can do is to educate the kids, but the public lacks the knowledge to effectively do so. They should be given the formation to be able to educate their children, and furthermore schools should educate minors on the use of tech.
"putting your kid in a room full of $bad_stuff" will mostly lead to addiction if the parent is not there to teach the kid: this is harmful to you; not you think?
Who are responsible alcohol drinkers? In my country the minimum age for consummation of alcoholic products is 18. What would you think of a 10 or 15 years old kid that's a responsible drinker?
What I'm arguing is against an analogue of this in tech. There is a certain period during which the exposure of a minor to technological devices should be governed by parents.
What do you think of adolescents which get recorded nude on chatrooms? Some of them commit suicide. What do you think of children victim to bullying online? What do you think of paedophiles tricking kids online? Isn't a parent responsible of protecting a minor from such abuses?
My general argument on this thread is that we should raise out children as good as we can. Protect them from danger that they cannot be conscious of. We can't certainly place burdens on adults, but we can try to raise adults that are not inept addicts with social deficiencies. And because most of the worlds population is tech-illiterate, it falls on governments to provide education and assistance to parents, just like they do so with health and education.
Most of the counter-arguments here has been strawmans, because while I'm mostly targeting children, I've been countered with arguments about adults.
I interpreted his message as he did not only want evidence for the internet, but also the other stuff I mentioned, and their effects on kids. I'm sorry if that wasn't the case.
I never said myself that tech per se will make kids dumber. What I say is, there should be measures governing their exposure, just like there are for other things.
Just like an alcohol drinker and an alcohol addict are different, an internet user and an internet addict are different too. Just because some or most are not addicts, we can't dismiss the addiction altogether.