I do agree. It can work and when you've put the time into designing it to work then it can feel fairly magical, but there's a point at which you feel like you're almost pre-creating all the queries for users.
this here. I've spent the last couple of years working on a similar data discovery style product and after a lot of playing around with concepts I think semi-natural language descriptions typed and also generated based on your manual data selection can be really useful.
If I'm speaking i have to finish the whole thought and deal with excluding all my "uuhms" and half thoughts. If I'm typing i can intellisense prompt for relevant things. Correlate Sales with _[Discounts, ...]. I think terse natural langage descriptions of data views are really useful aside from voice.
Incidentally nothing like trying to play around with this stuff to make you super self conscious about uuh how you speak.
My experience with this is it's more of a gimmick. It's cool when it works but most of the time I've found it simpler and more accurate to just select the data you want.
Your hypothetical there assumes that AMP actually works well. My experience is it's got painful usability issues at least on android chrome. The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing, returning you to results.
Fast is good, but at least it ought to be a good user experience. I used to use google news a lot, but i totally abandoned it after constant frustrating experiences with AMP. Plus most of the amp-ified pages don't seem significantly faster than the original page. I'm not seeing the utility for users, just for google.
AMP is also literally breaking internet. People share google.com/amp links,sometimes there'd be no preview and hard telling what the actual website being linked is.
On safari I get nothing except AMP links in google and cannot get myself routed to the actual site even with extensive searching. This disables sharing the link for me as well.
Have you considered switching search engines? I've been using https://duckduckgo.com for the last two years and this is the first time I'm hearing of Google AMP.
I really really really want to use DuckDuckGo.com but the search results are probably 10% as helpful as Google. As a developer it's nearly impossible to find a really specific answer using ddg whereas google will have 3 super-relevant links.
Google can (or refuse to) redirect you anywhere. They also get to know about it, in case the analytics on target page was not enough.
That said, I don’t actually agree that AMP’s link rewriting is necessarily the thing that breaks internet, because the original link is still contained in the modified URL, and can be recovered completely offline.
URL shorteneres are much more harmful in that aspect.
The real danger of AMP is giving Google that much (more) power. They don’t hide links today, but what stops them from turning evil(er) tomorrow.
Preferring AMP pages is a clear monopoly practice, and should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back (if you didn’t care about the censorship…). I’m really trying to have faith in free market sorting this out, but I don’t have much faith in the Facebook drones that brought us all this shit in the first place. Are there enough free people left?
I'm using an LG V20 device, with Chrome mobile, and I see a significant improvement with AMP'd pages over normal sites. So-much-so that I dread going to non-amped pages as they are slow and the ads are horrifically annoying.
I guess this is why anecdotal evidence is not as heavily weighed as a thoroughly tested and evidenced study.
If you have specific issues you can spell out, consider filing a bug on it[0]? The AMP team is tracking most of their work via Github as far as I'm aware.
As an iOS user, one bug that bothered me for a long time with AMP was scroll inertia, which seems to be an issue with Webkit rather than AMP[1]. If you poke around the tracker, you can see the team does what it can to fix issues across all platforms/browsers.
Funny that AMP just happened to use some sort of page structure that triggered an iOS bug that >99.9% of the rest of the web does not trigger...
What are the chances that Google would listen to big reports, supposing that anybody could find those links? Google is notorious for being inaccessible unless you happen to know an employee personally or have enough juice on twitter. They do not have a reputation as an open or accessible company.
> The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing, returning you to results.
Fast is good, but at least it ought to be a good user experience. I used to use google news a lot, but i totally abandoned it
I use "request desktop site" on google news to get that working properly on my android.
Although AMP is not a performance beast by any measure, your experience is coloured because you're using Chrome on Android. Google news works pretty well on Samsung browser. It still annoys me that I can't see the link to the actual website but that's it.
So you're saying that Google's official browser is slow on their official web technology on their official mobile platform? And Samsung, who is well known for their software quality issues, is a better choice?
Well, he is speaking from experience. While this isn't the place for speaking from experience but more about enabling a better experience for all users he cannot deny what he has observed. However the user above us had the correct answer with filing a bug / legitimate issue with devs. That is the only way to increase usability for all users.
Samsung's browser (and several other competitors) are faster on Android because they contain closed source rendering that's customised for their chipsets. Google can't integrate the closed source code into Chrome because they'd effectively have to fork it from Chromium to do so.
Doesn't Chrome already contain close source code? I thought it was chromium plus Google proprietary code. For example, some features are available only on Chrome (DRM etc. "features"). If they wanted, they could optimise for a selected few top selling devices.
I thought this was common knowledge. Chrome is horrible on Android. If you look at benchmarks, the only browser/phone combination that is close to iPhone Safari performance is the latest galaxy flagship running Samsung Internet.
The cost isn't the only issue though. You still have to somehow get to the DMV to get it and oops many Texas DMVs were closed in poorer Democrat leaning areas so it's now a time consuming and expensive journey to go get it. Might be an hour or two away but you can't miss your minimum wage job during business hours or no rent money so what are you going to do? Or say you're old and impoverished and don't have your birth certificate now its a huge problem to get that id. Might be you have to travel to another state and go through a DMV like process to get a copy first and again you don't have the means or time.
Texas' strict voter ID requirement was struck down in the courts last summer precisely because of these reasons. It was found that the law, despite free IDs significantly disadvantages black and latino voter's in the state who are much more likely to have issues like above. Didn't stop polling place workers in some areas though some of whom still turned people away based on the non-existent requirement.
OK, but even if you disregard voter ID (others have explained that issue well here already) the Republican party has engaged in a large number of other methods to supress votes. Fighting to overturn parts of the voting rights act , Gerrymandering, reducing polling places in cities with demographics that tend to vote for Democrats, removing early voting days and fighting against vote by mail (methods favored by Democrat leaning demographics), and the list goes on.
The Democrats have engaged in many of these same methods in the past btw, but today's GOP have taken it to the next level. So far that I question if many Republican leaders believe in democracy at all anymore.
>Also, in the realm of morality, everything atheism purports to be true is completely optional.
Well, no. Atheism does not purport anything to be true at all.
It's a lack of belief in one thing. I don't understand why that's so difficult for religious people to understand. Atheism is not a replacement for religion. There is no atheist rulebook, no set of beliefs, nothing.
Atheists can of course have morals but they don't derive from atheism and are not hindered by it either. They're unrelated.
*Edit, expanding...
Your argument presupposes that the only place morals can be derived from is religion where that the rules exist is the entire argument for why you should follow them. God says so, end of discussion.
There are better ways to derive morals based on day to day reality. There are better reasons not to murder than god says so.
>Your argument presupposes that the only place morals can be derived from is religion ...
not exactly, because:
> where [the rules' existence] is the entire argument for why you should follow them.
also counts for secular law. Religions just suppose a common denominator for justice, and always via authority, in form of personification in priests, juges, elders, oneself and messages via koans, laws and other scripture.
The content of the message may be however debatable, because the argument of authority alone is not sufficient (as netiquette has it), but is not a fallacy that would subvert its message (except that power might corrupt).
>God says so, end of discussion
in context of social order the end of discussion means first of all that there are no further hints, so to speak, and you have to work out the hows and whys yourself.
All this is just life and atheists aren't free of it either. They prescribe to the opposition of a concrete religious ideal or otherwise don't care about it. But socially critical opinions especially can only be derived from social feedback, either way. Even if exclusive authority seems unacceptable, that can be helped by granting everyone some authority, instead of disregarding it for those offenders (ie. that god guy who I here so much about).
Edit: So of course, you are right, atheist do not fundamentally reject fundamentalism (you see, that would be paradox). I was just trying to say, I liked the first part of your comment better.
This is the biggest misconception I see amongst atheists. They think they are rejecting one idea, so-called "God", when in fact they are rejecting 4.7 billion different ideas, without having even understood what 4.6 billion+ of them are. They reject the God of their parents, and then extrapolate to all the others, deeming them all "one idea".
Atheism is a hold-out of the old "single reality" idea. Ironically both atheists and strict religious fundamentalists share that property: the belief in one true way to understand reality, whether it's God or not-God. Rather than a willingness to allow others to define reality on their own terms.
My experience is most atheists are a lot more educated about the wide variety of religious beliefs than the religious who tend to just stick with whatever their parents believe. That's anecdotal but I think it's natural to go find out about other faiths as part of the process of questioning the faith of your parents or society.
There may be 4.6+ billion variants of the idea, but I rejected the root idea, magic.
You can shift the focus from the word "god" to the word "magic" but you are still rejecting a heterogenous mix of ideas of which you've only been exposed to a tiny fraction.
You have supreme belief that your compression of these ideas into the concept "magic" was lossless compression with respect to accurately conserving 6 billion people's core beliefs...
That seems honesty crazy to me. And it resembles an article of faith on your part.
You're putting a lot of beliefs and faith in my mouth there. I don't have supreme belief in anything. I just think it's extremely unlikely that any faith founded on magic is true and some kind of magic is a common thread in religion. I think it's unlikely true to the point that it's not worth my time except as an interesting cultural phenomenon. There's nothing crazy about that.
> the belief in one true way to understand reality
Again, there are no tenants of atheism, no rules, no insistence that there's only one way everyone should define reality. We just don't believe in God and that's the entire thing. Some atheists may think that but I don't and it is not atheism.
We're not in a religion, a club, or anything. I don't get to tell another atheist they're doing it wrong because there's no affiliation between us.
not my intent. I might tell another atheist to go read the definition of the word which is very narrow, but i wont tell them that being an atheist means you have to subscribe to any additional beliefs. that's my point.
Give me some better ways to derive morals and explain to me how, from an atheistic worldview, the acceptance or rejection of those morals is anything other than my own personal choice to accept or reject them?
Seemed like it was just a mobile join notification in the video similar to Skype for business or WebEx if you are using VoIP. No?
My company used WebEx and I could make it dial me and start up my conference line without having to go through all the regular pin entry stuff. Now we're using Lync (Skype for business) which is similar although tragically buggy. That can also dial me and sends notifications if you hook it up.
The key for these kind of apps is cost and reliability. Seems like they're advertising substantial cost reductions and better quality. If either one is true they'll likely make out really well.
I must say I've been really disappointed with how often it crashes outright or has major rendering issues during screen sharing. When it works it's really convenient but 20% of meetings with screen share involved seem to have an issue. I really think quality is life or death for these products. If my company weren't a tight Microsoft partner I really doubt we'd be using it.
WebEx wasn't as convenient but at least it worked correctly the vast majority of the time.
Anecdotal, but I use Skype for Business every day without any bugs/issues, as does the rest of my company (~50 people, lots of remote workers + liberal WFH policy).
When there's a rare issue, its usually a headset not working, which is probably more a user or windows problem.
I don't see a lot of audio issues, but tons of problems with screen sharing and video.
My company has about 4000 users in 100+ countries so maybe it's bandwidth/scale in part. i see a lot of stuff like skypefb crashes or doesn't render correctly when you try to screen share, etc especially internationally.
Not 100% certain part of it isn't due to us cheaping out on infrastructure to run it.
Wrt the bedtime thing cats are territorial and some will get a lot of anxiety about not being able to access their whole territory for patrol, etc. So if you're putting them in a room at night closed off you may be stressing your cat out and that's why she's fleeing. If I put my cat in a room too long the escape attempts and complaining are epic.
It's not for everybody but I kind of find that "pal, you don't _own_ me" look when my cat knows what I'm asking but doesn't feel like it endearing.
She's definitely the more primal of the pair. She has been known to "drown" her toy mice in their water bowl. My wife finds that particularly disturbing.
We've tried allowing them to run free in the living room and kitchen areas at night, but broken pictures and turned over lamps make that an impossibility (things that they don't do when we're home and awake, oddly enough). Our cats are why we can't have nice things, but we love them anyway.
