This reminds me of a story I read once about how Bell Labs engineers wanted to find the ideal length of a landline telephone chord. They did this by secretly shortening the chord over time on test users' telephones and waited to see how short they could make the chord before they noticed. If the plugtest is hardware-hardware testing Bell Labs engineers were doing human-hardware testing.
I tried to find a source for the story but I couldn't find one. I think I read it in The Innovators by Walter Isaacson, but I can't remember it exactly - maybe I'm misremembering it.
> Telephone company executives wondered whether the standard cord, then about three feet long, might be shortened. Mr. Karlin’s staff stole into colleagues’ offices every three days and covertly shortened their phone cords, an inch at time. No one noticed, they found, until the cords had lost an entire foot.
The issue I've always found with testing on human users is their willingness to ignore deficiencies.
There is a strong benefit for people "just getting on with it" and "working around" a problem; but it seems like many people are not very good at identifying when a problem is worth solving.
An analogous anecdote I'm aware of was a small in-house call-centre team being moved to digital playbooks (vs those A5 ring bound / tabbed sets). While time-to-resolve each issue got lower and time-to-adapt to new workflows a lot faster, many tracked metrics got worse. Suddenly they were picking up fewer calls, time to answer was increasing, job-satisfaction decreased.
It turns out the new system was forcing the team to be sitting at their desk. In a small and busy multi-team office these people were usually doing all kinds of other small things - be it making coffee, liaising with other teams, etc. - whatever it was they weren't always at their desk. They did have wireless handsets however, so they used to answer the phone, start the call from memory, and move to use the nearest playbook.
The big issue with the digital playbooks was needing to "follow along", you can't reasonably start it away from your desk.
The team knew this was an issue very quickly, it was quite fixable, but they sucked it up for months.
Interesting story. I have noticed that certain parameters are often ignored not because they're unimportant, but instead because they're hard to quantify.
Another story is how the first product made by Jobs and Wozniak at Apple was a hacked phone that could be used to make international calls for free. They called the Vatican and pretended to be Henry Kissinger wanting to speak to the pope - they noticed and promptly hung up before they reached him
The HN crowd is not representative of the entire market. Most people don't care about the operating system and only want something that
1) is simple to use
2) they already know
3) they happen to already have (most people keep their phones for many years)
Also, the largest phone market in the world is the developing countries market. Cheap phones are supreme right now
That's not what I observe. Many non technical people have ethical concerns.
This fantasy among the technical crowd here that the general public only cares about cheap and convenient, which is at best condescending, needs to die. Convincing oneself of this only takes meeting non technical people.
Every non-technical person I’ve talked to doesn’t seem to care. In many cases I think it’s because they don’t really understand or the threat is too abstract. For example, collecting information to display ads and manipulate an algorithm to influence how a person thinks, feels, and consumes, for fun and profit.
Since they can’t see it, think they’re above it, and see stuff that makes them laugh, they just keep going. Never mind all the misinformation these same people send me or how worked up they get about various political issues they never seemed to care about before.
This is the boat a lot of people I know fall into. They will get upset about a lot of stuff, but have a massive blind spot when it comes to online and device privacy, even if I try to point it out. I’m usually trying to point it out as they are trying to convince me to join Facebook and Instagram. If I get worked up over some privacy overreach in something I’m trying to use, they just kind of shrug. A fiend of mine spent all morning ranting to me about streaming services, but isn’t cancelling any of them.
My experience is that you can't "convince" people out of Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok, because the platforms themselves convince people to use them. They always emit that background radiation of "You're missing out on VERY important stuff".
It's literally brainwashing by design. My dad is convinced everybody should use Facebook to be informed or they'll be "left behind". My peers are convinced you're socially a loser if you don't have Instagram. Privacy concerns are not even an afterthought.
And this brainwashing sits on top of the dopamine/reward center related neurochemical effects of these apps, which are very mild, much milder than any typical substance addictions for most people.
It took me aboout 3 months of abstinence of Reddit and HN for it to finally click that I didn't actually need them at any capacity in my life.
The blind spot is all too obvious for those with eyes to see. I can tell which app is a person's drug of choice within ~5 minutes of meeting them. Over time, these algorithm-driven apps even (subtly) change a person's personality.
Most of the non-technical but politically-attuned people I know are the ones who are actually concerned about the Apple+Google monopoly. The technical people are the ones who don't care.
I suppose it depends on the area then. Or maybe I'm in my own bubble.
Most people I know aren't particularly technical, and many of them are at least concerned or aware of these topics, even if they haven't taken any concrete actions (yet).
Keep trying to gently spread the word then, that's a good thing to do (without being annoying!). It takes time, but it eventually pays.
I also have a lot of friends who deleted WhatsApp, Facebook, etc. over the years due to privacy concerns. I also know a few people who have dumb phones for the same reason. I have gotten a couple friends to install NetGuard firewall on their Android phones and gave them a quick tutorial how to whitelist new apps and they are very happy that they have some sort of control about what comes in/goes out of their phones. All of the above groups are very non-technical. And on the other end, 50% of my technical friends don't seem to give a shit anymore - maybe they realize it's futile to even try, since the panopticon is multi-faceted and drains a lot of energy trying to keep prying eyes away. Ignorance can be bliss?
I think that group of people is divided between those who think they're above it and don't care at all and those who do care but feel powerless to stop it and try not to think about it. Both end up looking the same on the surface
I move them from the, “doesn’t think about it” to “thinks they’re above it”, when they make claims that their algorithm isn’t like that, they can see the manipulation tactics, etc… while at the same time being fired up over some nonsense they saw in their feed or thinking AI stuff is real. It’s clearly impacting them, but their hubris prevents them from seeing or admitting it.
You hit the nail on the head. The rest of the world yearns for a phone that is cheap, has many years of updates, and not directly subject to US government control.
Motorola on GrapheneOS can run away with this and create a Global South phone ecosystem that can rival that of Apple and Google. The fact they are Chinese owned is a feature.
Yeah I don't think the common consumer thinks that the leap from a regular Android or Apple smartphone to something 'more open' is the leap from a horse-drawn carriage to an automobile. That's fantasy thinking.
You seem to be misinterpreting the implication. The implication is that the consumer would never ask for what they actually want, because the consumer can't even conceive the possibility of what they really want being available.
Ask an exercise, ask yourself this: if you could offer every iPhone or Android shopper the choice between their current OS, and an otherwise exactly identical one that just wasn't listening to them, spying on them, tracking them, selling their every thought to advertisers, and shoving irrelevant ads into their face all day long, how many do you think would honestly prefer the one with all the spyware and ads?
Ordinary people do want privacy of their data, autonomy over their device. They just feel so hopelessly powerless in the fight that they don't believe it's even possible to achieve any meaningful degree of privacy or control these days, and those values are less important to them than the value of having a smartphone itself, so they sacrifice those values to have a smartphone.
It's not just that. How many bugs or ridiculous misfeatures do existing phones have because the OEMs are teaching to the test for benchmarks or just don't care to fix them?
You were reading something on your phone, switched to a different app for 3 seconds and then back, and now it's an error page because you're in a poor cell coverage area but the device is nefariously aggressive at unloading apps to try to eek out a marginal advantage on battery life reviews. Worse, for well-behaved apps that actually degrades battery life because having to reload the app requires the device to do more work than letting it stay idle in the background.
Separate the software from the hardware and you don't have to worry about that, because they can mess up the stock image however they want for the reviews and you just have someone replace it with a version with those bugs removed.
The average consumer wants a phone with their personal balance of:
* Feature
* Price
* Looks/status
Everything else is completely irrelevant. Now, what features and what looks varies over time. But something as intangible as being 'more open' or 'more private' just isn't significant for most people. People on HN care. Average consumers do not. It's too ethereal and meaningless.
If a new phone or service had a specific certification, like how IP certifications work for waterproofing, then that might change. If it was certified by a third party that X phone with Y service would never sell your data in Z ways.
It is basically just a proxy. I don't see how censorship could be an antidote to a "subversive political influence campaign" - if anything you're describing censorship
Censoring foreign political influence and misinformation campaigns is just sane policy.
US misinformation is no different from Russian misinformation. freedom.gov is specifically meant to spread this misinfo, freedom of speech is the stated purpose, but if you believe that, you are naive.
How is it a proxy? It's just a boring blank landing page? (Just checking from my European internet connection, without blockage as Spain is not all of Europe.
Well, it certainly allows and enables the spread of misinformation.
That is, what's blocked? Things that people consider misinformation. Some of it really is, and some of it is just stuff that's politically unpopular with the powers that be (which they're also going to label misinformation). And then some of it falls afoul of various copyright laws or other such.
But certainly real misinformation is a significant chunk of that. The proxy enables that misinformation (and disinformation) to bypass the censorship/blocking. So in that sense, yes, it spreads misinformation.
I agree. I just don't agree with misinformation not being protected as free speech. Surely having an INGSOC decide what is truthful enough to be shared is detrimental to free expression and thought. Heliocentrism was also misinformation at one point.
That is unfortunately the truth of it. There are distressingly few people in the US these days who actually have a principled belief in freedom of speech. Both the left and the right talk up freedom of speech when they are out of power, but are quite willing to destroy it when they are in power. I would give my left proverbial for a political party that actually protects freedom of speech.
Believe it or not, removal of content is mandated on the basis of laws that have been passed by the majority of representatives elected by the people. For example, it is a crime in Germany to publicly glorify wars of aggression and use Nazi symbols or deny the Holocaust. It's also a crime to publish child abuse material.
On a side note, setting up a website deliberately designed to circumvent such laws will itself likely violate the law and might lead to criminal prosecution. While the US government will certainly be protected by diplomatic immunity, other people involved probably won't be protected.
What rubbish. A foreign bad actor declares they specifically want to feed your people propaganda through a specific communication channel. Do you need more than two brain cells to decide whether that's an influence campaign?
At first I wanted to write a comment about how cars and sex are apparently very well linked. Upon thinking it over once more, it appears that the real link to sex is privacy, which is of course obvious. Thinking over it once more, we're brought back to the real selling point of cars: total privacy. Public transport is on paper really good, but it is totally devoid of privacy - which means that it is bad in reality. In other more provocative words, public transportation is bad because you can't have sex on the bus
Yes. The reason the year of the Linux desktop has yet to arrive is because most people don't understand this joke. Linux is powerful because it is made for power users (although certain distros are changing this)
I think the obvious thing to do here is to say "Always bet on symbolics".
What separates text from images is that text is symbolic while images are visceral or feelings based. In the same way, text comes in short when it comes to the feeling you get when seeing an image. Try to put in to text what you feel when you look at Norman Rockwell's Freedom of Speech or a crappy 0.5MB picture of your daughter taken on an iPhone 3. Hard isn't it? Visual and symbolic are not isomorphic systems.
Examples of symbolic systems like text are sheet music and Feynman diagrams. You would be hard pressed if you tried to convey even 2KB of sheet music in a book
It is often that seemingly irrelevant factors play a big role. In this case, a 141 page highly dense (and frankly boring to read) document is in its essence a liability. Engineers get bored too and it is obviously more fun to just code rather than to read a document that might aswell have been written by a lawyer.
This is also why car makers name their cars things like "Jeep Expedition" or "Ford Escape". The name doesn't change the car, but it does make it more exciting.
In this case, a 141 page highly dense (and frankly
boring to read) document is in its essence a liability
So, do you think that the intent was for developers to memorize this document?
Or do you think the expectation was something more reasonable, like using this document as a tool to configure linting tools so that developers could get realtime feedback as they code?
No, that is not what I mean. The efficiency of a piece of knowledge is not only a function of its intrinsic value, but also how easy it is to understand. Sure, the people who are expected to read the document are smart and this is probably the best way to do it, but even Lockheed engineers are fallible.
If anything, the enemy will be defeated before they have had the time to understand the document in case it gets leaked xD
I think almost all multilingual people would agree that writing cordially is easier in their native language - whatever that language may be. Expressing heartfelt messages in the language you spoke when developing your identity and emotional maturity is more about just that, rather than what the language happens to be.
reply