Yes yes, labor market, visas, etc. It's still a choice to do something evil, even if you're coerced.
I am not sure you’re making a reasonable or realistic argument when you are saying that someone should risk or give up their job, personal security, and stability of their family rather than implement a button to turn off iPhone notifications.
I don’t disagree with the principle at all, but if it’s ever going to change the conversation has to start somewhere rational. “Destroy your life because your UI offends me” isn’t it.
Nick Naylor: [out loud] "I just need to pay the mortgage."
Nick Naylor: [to self] The Yuppie Nuremberg defense.I just made sure to save the emails/documentation/etc. in case anyone tried to blame it on me when it failed or users complained. If the order came down from high enough up the org, a UX manager or director might also go on the record opposing it to cover for those under them in the org.
I think of it like hiring someone to replace all the beautiful hardwood floors in your home with thick, orange shag carpet. It's a bad idea and it will probably hurt the resale value of your home, but there's nothing unethical about the contractor accepting the work and taking your money as long as everything's done properly and to code.
And every few years the people of Missouri would vote NO casinos. But one time, they voted to allow the casinos. Then the votes stopped. Hugely manipulative and it feels like this sort of thing is everywhere now.
> all we need... is for one of us, just one, sooner or later to have the thing we're all hoping for. One good day.
Also, you don't just "have" casinos, building any building of that size is at the very least a multi-month affair and likely multiple years.
So once you say "yes", you've set something in motion that is way harder to unwind than it was to kick off.
Also, I can see it being the casinos themselves asking permission to enter the state. Once they're allowed in, why would they ask to leave? That would be the job of someone else.
If the people want them gone, they have to do the same as the casinos did.
I was implying the repeated votes to allow casinos were being put forward by the casinos themselves. They had a vested interest in the vote.
They have no vested interest in the opposite. Someone with that interest needs to lobby to get that vote to the people. Expecting the casinos to do that is weird
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action>
<https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=63B1D140FD13A03F15BF842...>
Very strongly recommended. I'd stumbled across this in my uni days, and its power and insight were obvious even to naive me then. It's since emerged as a classic of economics.
PaulHoule is also a fan: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775531>
Just because something costs a lot of money or takes a lot of effort doesn’t mean it’s good? It’s a non sequitur.
First they bundled it in the regular November election. It failed. So then they bundled it in a run-off or primary election. It still failed. Finally they ran it on a solo ballot and it finally passed.
I was like 19 or so. Voted against it every time but that was sort of an eye-opening moment for young me.
Now that it is legalized, though, there is no one who has a concentrated enough cost to fight for its reversal. It is more rational to just suffer the small cost of gambling instead of fighting hard for its repeal.
So as you say, they only have to win the fight once, and it is won forever, and society is slightly worse off.
This is the exact same reason Intuit keeps winning the tax battle… it matters more to them than anyone else, even though it makes it a little bit worse for everyone.
Apathy reigns as usual.
There literally isn’t enough time in the day for me to fight against everything, so you pick and choose where to spend your energy.
I like the idea of policy changes like this having an expiry date a few years in the future, which forces a periodic revote if some party wants to keep the new policy. Like a political office term, this should be long enough to give businesses a timeframe they can plan around, and an opportunity for voters to see how the policy played out.
Perhaps it would lead to an ever-increasing pile of legal "confirmation dialog boxes" that bore the public. But I like that the default action (doing nothing) would lead to regulations being deleted, as there are few forces that act to reduce regulation, and having too many regulations is another slow-burn energy sink for everyone.
Which policies would be up for review? Everything? Do we have to re-outlaw murder ever 5 years?
Regarding murder, I don't have a problem with having to periodically re-criminalise that either, though I think that for cases like this where there's enough of a consensus, the ban could be either permanent or much longer-term (e.g., every 50 years). In fact, having overly frequent votes on such serious crimes might encourage people to try to overturn them as a prank.
That's ideally why we elect proper representatives and have advocacy groups who can expend that energy. We don't do too much better there, spending a fee hours researching who will actually fight in our interest instead of enabling the armies of minor inconveniences to stack up.
Sad thing about the US is that it's a reactive country, not a preventative one. It really doesn't try to act on stuff until it's arguably too late.
* Coalition of nonprofits desperately trying to actually represent the will of the people in defiance of the legislature. Good recent example would be abortion amendments that pass without too much trouble in red states. Democrats might need to adjust their barometer on how Americans actually feel about immigration but Republicans have refused to acknowledge the Overton Window on abortion is passing them by.
* Cash grabs because some financially interested party realized the money to get legislation this way is worth the investment.
Don’t make things into a game theory problem. It’s a power problem.
How to solve the problem is a separate issue, but the problem can be described with game theory.
Price controls don't work for groceries or gasoline, why would they work for rent?
If you can find data in support of such a policy I'd be interested to see it.
>Price controls don't work for groceries or gasoline, why would they work for rent?
Whats the alternative? They increase rent to the point where people are kicked out anyway? Every option leads to unattainable rent except for the rich.
I woildnt mind moving to central valley if we weren't in an age where everyone is RTO'ing and there's zilch for tech jobs in Fresno and Bakersfield. Cheaper housing with no job market is a net negative.
>you cannot solve a supply provlem by restricting prices
Is it really a supple provlem, though? The US keeps saying it's unemployment and homelessness is so historically low. It seems more like housing is getting greedy and doesn't care how many leave the city. Tha very much can be fixed with proper pricing controls.
No, I'm not assuming that. It's an awful thing that many people do not have flexibility in where they live. That's made more awful by restrictions on building that make it difficult for people to live affordably in many places.
You asked for an intermediate solution; the intermediate solution is "do what we can, where we can, while working towards the full solution".
> Is it really a supple provlem, though? [...] It seems more like housing is getting greedy and doesn't care how many leave the city.
The ability for housing to charge higher prices is a supply problem. There's much more demand than supply, so if someone can't pay the asked rent, the next person coming along will; as long as that demand is higher than the supply, price controls can't solve the problem. For the most part (ignoring some additional perverse incentives we should also address, which sometimes lead people to leave rental properties empty for a long time), if that wasn't happening, the rents would go down until there's a tenant willing to pay them. If it's possible for people to raise rents massively and still have tenants, build more houses until that's no longer possible.
(There are other ways to "solve" the problem, but they aren't desirable ones. If the local job market collapses, demand will go down massively, and there will no longer be a supply shortage, so rents will go down (or get converted to sales, and sale prices will go down). That's not a positive outcome for a location, or for the people in it. I mention this only because there can be other markets, other than housing, where "decrease demand" may be desirable rather than "increase supply".)
There are additional depths of complexity here, in that the market for sales and the market for rents interact in a variety of ways, as well as the job market in various locations and the market for sales/rentals. "build more" is still the answer to a lot of those problems, but I still want to acknowledge the additional complexity.
The problem is that when a tenant has been renting the same place for 20 years with the landlord raising the rent as much as legally allowed each year, and it's drastically below market rates, but if the landlord evicts them they can't rent to anyone else for a year. The solution to that is to build more housing to bring down market rates so that people aren't trapped in one place forever.
Therefore: if the commission wants a law, all they have to do is keep trying. If it fails, they try again. If it passes, well it only has to pass once. Because the parliament can't introduce bills which means it can't repeal existing laws.
I even like Apple's reactions implementation, which is pretty good, but there's definitely some PM that wants to push it in my face 10 times every day and I don't know what's worse, the PM doing this fully understanding the cost or whatever system stands aside and lets them continue.
But with Apple you're paying 1000 eurodollars so the least they can do is respect the customer.
Some YouTube executive must be really proud of that award.
You can selectively block elements from sites. I've blocked shorts from it and honestly forgot how annoying it was until these comments. Just right click, block element, preview before applying, make sure you don't butcher out unintended parts of the pages.
That’s what I do. I only watch videos from my subscriptions feed.
The sad reality is, every apps out there are chasing the attention grabbing KPI. The more time the potential user spent on the platform, the better it is for them.
The second part of the chasing is, are they targetting the younger generation, or not. Because of TikTok and other spin off, YouTube has no choice but have to chase behind and ideally overtake them.
Every single VOD app out there are trying to do the same.
Every few restarts, it is showing a pop up that shows the wallpaper that was chosen and a “learn more” button… the pop up can’t be moved, can’t be closed, and stays on top no matter what.
It took me a few minutes before I finally gave up and clicked on the “learn more” button, which of course opened Edge (even though edge isn’t my default browser), which of course prompted me to switch to using edge as my default browser, which I had to decline and close edge again.
And now I have repeated this dance a number of times on restarts. No, I don’t want to learn more about the wallpaper, and I don’t want to use Edge!
https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10
You should be able to find the setting responsible for displaying these "learn more" buttons. I always disable it for myself and friend's computers.
Once you know your ways around disabling all annoyances in Windows, it's really smooth sail.
Good luck!
also their new default-on email classification system is a fucking nightmare and I was so glad when I figured out you can turn it off
plus why do my email drafts load in oldest first?
But some design decision are just timeless crap. This is such a fitting example of bad design but there will be still people defending it because of some alleged grandma not finding her settings. Just wait, there are a lot of those.
Apple disrespects its users choice
Youtube isn't your computer. It's their computer. And the precise, predictable mechanical command they have given it is to manipulate you.
The way out is to just not engage. Do you find anything truly appealing about Youtube? If there was some video on it somewhere that was "I can't live without this" good, why haven't you ripped the video with youtube-dl and kept it? It would no longer be a Youtube video, and you'd no longer have to tolerate Youtube's antihuman UI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
Or look at the case of Mozilla which seems to be at least treading water when it comes to browser engineering but in terms of marketing and legitimacy they seem to be doing as little as possible to threaten Chrome but keep plugging along because if Firefox went down then Google might get pulled into antitrust court. (Think how Microsoft funded Apple during the dark years of the 1990s to keep competition alive or how the existence of Android must have a huge value to Apple today in that Apple can claim it has competition -- competition like the heel in pro wrestling)
Of all the interstitials PBS had, this one was by far the oddest.
Finally found a recording of one of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL5zcOtwTjg
(This one just had the text, and not the voiceover.)
Over a few decades starting in 2000, I stopped purchasing music entirely. I also stopped listening to the radio, and in 2015 I got rid of my last TV. (Sometimes when you're in public, you can't avoid these.) And things seemed alright.
But I have come full circle and developed a complete addiction to YouTube that satiates all these desires in one service. Why own music when I can stream anything on demand? Why own a TV or disc player when all movies I want to see are likewise available?
So I pay for Premium. I could live without YouTube, but I would flounder in abject boredom. My music entertainment would be severely limited, like what was available in PD or Creative Commons, and that's rather grim. If YouTube were completely unavailable to me, in terms of any music or video, I would indeed struggle to fill those gaps, because it really fills out my days.
Thankfully, with Premium I am not nagged by ads and the UI generally cooperates. The ads were really wearing me down, because the more you use it, the more you're subjected to. Unfortunately, YouTube as a platform is not oriented to "watching what I want when I want it" but to discovering new content and suggesting "stuff I might like", so I still do fight to stay on the rails of what I truly enjoy.
Android, on the other hand, has become a holy terror. Every time I try to do something with my life, whether it's banking or finance or health care or shopping, Android is getting in my way and hindering my sanity. I cannot accomplish a simple thing without Android distracting me, frustrating me, and making me forget what I was trying to do. How many times have I unlocked my phone, fiddled, and then locked it again, only to discover that I didn't get anything done? That typically didn't happen with Microsoft or Windows, because indeed MS... was... primarily a B2B provider, and home users enjoyed similar deference to let us be productive without getting in our face. Unfortunately, that is all converging on Consumerist Advertising Hell.
Honestly, YouTube's catalog is so extensive that I don't need to go outside of it. I don't enjoy reading any books or magazines, frankly. YouTube does interfere with one book in particular, and that's the Bible. Which I have plenty of access too, but my "quality time" suffers because I'm engrossed in other things.
I am no stranger to the library. But when I visited last year and looked through the catalog, I sort of wanted to throw up a little. Because the selection at my nearby municipal library, and the main branch of the Phoenix system, they suck a lot. I mean it's horrible.
My local library curates a lot of extremist liberal material. On their shelves are the gayest authors, and the harshest critics of conservatism, and a lot of Indigeneous/Latino. In other words, coalitions of people who hate my way of life and wish to destroy it by any means necessary. I would rather not read their playbooks, whether or not they are succeeding in their mission. A dearth of material aligned with my worldview. Plenty of pagan books, self-help and pop-psychology, and lots of outdated tech or legal info, but nothing I would really be induced to check out.
Likewise for the Phoenix main library. It's huge, cavernous, should be chock-full of information, but I was able to find a couple of bio books on US Presidents that sort of held my interest for 20 minutes. Mostly this library is oriented toward retired people seeking hobbies, and people looking for jobs, and the sort of practical stuff for the urban poor and their children.
I was interested in deep topic research on Ireland, or Pennsylvania, and various related historical topics, and I found that any local library just can't afford shelf-space on regions far away like that. I could study local Arizona history for sure; in fact there's a special room for that, but I only share 26 years' worth of that history.
The catalogs of Libby and Overdrive were massive and overwhelming, but again, the caliber of content was underwhelming. The video streaming platform was, again, pushing lots of far-left stuff before my eyes; I just didn't want to watch it. YouTube has lots of mainstream blockbuster films. I'm good with pay-per-view of something that is well-made.
No, I really have no objections to YouTube or the way it's sucked me in. It's the friendliest and most bearable Google property of all. Sadly it's the same Google where I try to get daily stuff done. A library card won't help me do banking or pay my bills. My smartphone is getting in the way now. We're enslaved to these things and I don't anticipate it getting better.
Because you're not streaming music. They are streaming music. You've got this need for music now, only they can satisfy it (or so it would seem), and sooner or later they will decide to stream it differently or not at all because to do so satisfies their needs. At that point, it is very unlikely that it will satisfy yours.
Companies no longer view their customers as their customers, and I'm not sure I've settled on an explanation that makes sense to me. I only have examples. The biggest one though was Bug Light and the Dylan Mulvaney thing from several years ago. I no longer have a link, but there was a paraphrased quote from the marketing director at the time directly expressing contempt for those who drank Bud Light. But a frustrated expletive, rather a full-on rant about how they were all moronic frat boys and gauche rednecks.
What does it mean when a company has no respect for its own customers, no gratitude, and even measurable levels of what can only be called hatred? I don't know the answer to that question, but that's the world we all live in this year of 2025. And I can't imagine it could possibly turn out well for any of us.
Similarly, we all understand the concept of "firing a customer" who isn't worth dealing with for one reason or another.
Sometimes, individual customers or vocal segments really do epouse views which are incompatible with the company's ethical mores. It's easy to imagine "firing" a customer who abuses support professionals with racial slurs, as an extreme example.
If a business doesn't want to serve a particular market segment, that's a different situation from generalized customer contempt.
Consider how big corps are able to get laws passed that benefit them (or stall laws that would harm them).
All this, to say that the C-suite and senior leader types are more like "ticks riding on the back of a mega-parasite", than "greedy entities deliberately transforming formerly-benign corporations into harmful entities".
All companies on planet Earth, since the dawn of history, have in fact been people. None were composed of elephants or aardvarks or sea urchins. It is not anthropomorphization to say this, they are literally people. This is why so many of their behaviors and idiosyncrasies are human, because companies are human.
> The root cause is the political corruption that
A common refrain from the sort of person who hopes to recruit others into their own political crusades. These things are not the root causes, but even if they were, it's essentially impossible to do anything about it.
Could be an apple device. During setup there's a Privacy screen that links to 1000 pages of privacy policy - and not one setting you can change.
I've had to uninstall so many apps because of this bad behavior.
They want the user to be worn down until they just accept the notifications or whatever else or even just accidentally click YES on one of the recurrent pop ups.
It is beyond infuriating the number of times a google search misclick on my phone leads me to the app store opening the page for the google app. Same with a reddit page. They know what they're doing and they don't care. And even then you have to manually close that giant banner that covers half your screen to dismiss the nag to download the app-- when the web version works perfectly fine!
Alright time to stop ranting and get back to work :)
The most recent example that sticks in my mind is I uninstalled Duolingo because they kept changing the app icon, but what finally did it for me is when they changed to some disgusting version of it with snot dripping from the creature's (is it an owl? some kind of bird? I forget) nostrils. WTF Duolingo? Uninstalled, I'm done with it.
Sort of how obvious typos in phishing emails leave them with "customers" who will "buy" what they're selling.
This recently got egregious. Android itself is now showing these prompts for the Messages (SMS) and Phone apps! Like What The Actual Fuck?!
If enough users adopt this behavior you can force companies to change hah
Parenthetically, a solution that relies on a blockchain can be much better than either. Blockchain tech does have some merit although the world doesn't need hundreds of blockchains: a few will do (and the official git repo for Linux could probably suffice as one of them).
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190115034109/https://plus.goog...>
(And yes, I archived all my G+ content, though it's one hell of a bastard to search through it.)
That posted to HN on a day where for a moment three of HN's front-page stories were my own content (direct submissions or links to).
HN discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6745525>
The following day saw a slew of Google-critical stories:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2013-11-17>
And yeah, it's not got better. I fight back (uBlock origin element remover, custom stylesheets, entire rewrites of news sites (<https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/114356066459105122>, working on a further revision now), and almost entirely abandoning the mobile comms device space (no smartphone, a largely de-Googled and anonymised e-ink tablet with no no subscription-based apps installed).
I still strongly believe that this ends poorly.
The whole notion is absurd to me. A notification is supposed to notify you that something happened. But in these cases nothing has actually happened. All these notifications are, are thinly veiled attempts to manipulate you into opening the app to then try to shove more things into you for the benefit of the company that made the app.
I'm generally very stingy with notification permissions, so on the rare occasion that one of these does slip through, it makes me furious. It feels like an insult to my dignity as a human being.
Or else, if there IS a subcategory to turn off then they just invent a new subcategory a few months after I’ve opted out, and auto opt me into that instead. eg I opt out of “marketing notifications” and then “relevant suggestions” is created. I’m looking at you, Google Maps.
Nextdoor is the worst for this. Their UI to disable them also requires clicking into 15 different groupings of notification and turning off each type one by one. I always find myself getting random Nextdoor marketing spam and sure enough they've added a new category and opted me in.
Really though? I have multiple necessary apps (and some I don't really need) on my phone and universally just cut off all their notifications of all kinds, because fuck that shit.
If, as per your example, I need to know in some context when a certain app is going to remind me of something genuinely necessary/ueful soon, I just check it often while waiting without enabling notifications.
If we're talking about your average Uber, that's a few minutes of checking periodically until you get what you want. A bit tedious? Sure, but only for a few minutes here and there, vs letting these scummy little dark patterns hassle you all the time with their notification turds.
https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
Part of the population is learning that -- but I think another part is learning that application providers are not incentivized to design around the users' best interest, and that if you want your software to behave in a predictable, user friendly way, you need to seek out third party tools (like uBlock Origin, UnTrap for Youtube, ReVanced, Invidious etc) to enforce that behavior.
I tend to see this as one form of a widening gap between software users and software creators. I don't subscribe to the hardcore open-source philosophy that everyone should be contributing to the software they use. But I do think it's getting problematic when a small minority of people who understand the complexities of what's actually going on are crafting elaborate systems of smoke and mirrors to present a seemingly simple interface to users. I would rather that today's interfaces be ten times "worse" but ten times more predictable.
Yes, this is using an H100 to crack a walnut, we shouldn't have to, etc. But still.
But, this really cuts to the core of everything wrong with modern software.
Open your bank app. Immediately get blocked by a popup asking you to complete a survey or try some new feature.
Sign up for a new account with some SaaS. Immediately get blocked with a tutorial flow to sell you on how great it is, regardless if you even came there for those features in the first place.
Even the way OS updates are installed has turned into a pushy salesman that tricks you into agreeing to something you didn't originally want.
Open-source software respects my will. It's a great feeling that many forgot existed. It's not trying to trick me all the time. When it's not perfect, I patch it.
I also love to write my own programs to solve my own problems. Like everyone used to do in the 70s. I'm having a great time and am productive than ever.
Evidently, it is now back as strong as ever. Either the metrics tanked enough to reverse this policy, the new generation simply forgot, or they never intended it to be permanent policy and only temporarily implemented it to appease the original outcry.
I'd written "The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User" about six years prior to that:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20230606224134/https://old.reddi...>
JoshTriplett•9mo ago
Does Microsoft understand consent? Yes / Ask me again later
In general, options like "never ask me again" seem to have disappeared, and we should bring them back.
CamperBob2•9mo ago
JoshTriplett•9mo ago
tgsovlerkhgsel•9mo ago
Often, there simply is no respectful alternative because everyone is doing it, or the respectful alternative is utterly useless due to other issues, or the disrespectful platform is the exclusive distributor for some content that you really want to access.
The platforms/apps know this and generally get more abusive the less alternatives you have.
otterley•9mo ago
ikiris•9mo ago
JoshTriplett•9mo ago
ndiddy•9mo ago
andrepd•9mo ago
- Most users just use what is preinstalled on their device. That's how Windows got their share and its how Chrome, Facebook, Google, etc, retain theirs.
- As the blogpost points out, many people don't even realise there's an option.
- Which sometimes there is not: either literally or in practice. E.g. I'm forced to maintain at the very least a whatsapp and a facebook account to perform basic everyday tasks.
- Finally, what I think is the most important point: these behaviours give a competitive advantage, therefore there needs to be a floor enforced by law. It's much like environmental protections, it's not enough to say "the customers should pick the greener choice", because dumping waste into a river is cheaper than processing it or recycling. You need to enforce a level playing field via laws, to ensure this does not happen.
JoshTriplett•9mo ago
That's not inherently the case. Scummy dark patterns like these might show short-term advantages in numbers, but doing that burns user trust.
It's a pretty stark difference between classes of companies. Consider how people feel about Comcast and Facebook, versus how people feel about Stripe and Vanguard. (Random examples of companies with wildly different reputations.)
esafak•9mo ago
PaulHoule•9mo ago
AlexandrB•9mo ago
That seems counterfactual when talking about Chrome. Microsoft has tried every trick in the book - short of simply blocking Chrome - to get people using Edge on Windows. It's been somewhat effective, but Chrome still retains a dominant lead. This is entirely due people going out of their way to install Chrome.
PaulHoule•9mo ago
I find it shocking how many community organizations are completely dependent on Meta. I saw a poster for a club that gets together to play board games that simply had a heading that said "Board Game Club" and a QR code but no meeting times or places, no contact phone, email or web site url. The QR code points to... a Facebook page. If you want to engage with this organization you have no choice but to use Facebook and be subject to their system of pernicious personalization.
Many student organizations at Cornell use Instagram as their primary or only communications tool. There are so many problem with that, not least that you can't engage with that platform without giving a mobile phone number with a real cellular carrier and that doesn't have metadata about events so you get notifications on your phone about events that happened a month ago. It's absurd, but you'd make yourself a hermit if you eschewed these platforms.
jcgrillo•9mo ago
AlexandrB•9mo ago
See also: how reddit shut down superior competing UIs by changing their API terms.
dayvigo•9mo ago
AlexandrB•9mo ago
I don't think YouTube is going to feel compelled to change their UI if 1% of users are using some alternative UI off of Tor.
dayvigo•9mo ago
grishka•9mo ago
In the US, as far as I know, there hasn't yet been a precedent about this.
reverendsteveii•9mo ago
retrac•9mo ago
Mountain_Skies•9mo ago
willhslade•9mo ago
Spivak•9mo ago
Especially evolving social norms like cut it with the replying "go make me a sandwich" to women like it's the late 90's.
whateveracct•9mo ago
JoshTriplett•9mo ago
trinsic2•9mo ago
ikiris•9mo ago
izacus•9mo ago
Same for engineers - user respect doesn't have value for them either, you'll get the laziest, easiest implementation of a given ticket. Or the most complex and one if they're up for promotion or want to learn a new tech.
Afterwards, both groups will happily run towards greener pastures by the time any of this "respect value" materializes.
grishka•9mo ago
astrange•9mo ago
rozap•9mo ago
i hate it when engineers do this song and dance "well actually it's really hard to do that" in order to justify the position that they already had before the conversation started. no it isn't, it literally isn't, it's just smoke and mirrors to justify your position.
namaria•9mo ago
astrange•9mo ago
Persistence of /people who work at the company who remember what the flags mean/ is not. What if you've made a promise to never show something, it has legal effect in some country, and a new PM in charge of a new feature uses the wrong flag?
dayvigo•9mo ago
pseudalopex•9mo ago
astrange•9mo ago
dfxm12•9mo ago
tremon•9mo ago
mixmastamyk•9mo ago
pseudalopex•9mo ago
mikestew•9mo ago
astura•9mo ago
pndy•9mo ago
I doubt anything can be done nowadays without some law enforcement. We're long gone from times when companies offered actual options and features for the user and not for themselves.
lud_lite•9mo ago