While I can find alternatives to search, reCaptcha not working is concerning.
I previously wrote about how various shopping sites are being very hostile to their customer base [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29384866]. Why does a 32kb text article need 10MB of battery draining heavy javascript to just work? But this is more then just shopping sites as so many websites, browsers, programs, and even OS's are making decisions that are hostile to their users. And it's coming from everywhere. What used to be controversial (e.g. dark patterns), is now normal. And if the user complains - the answers from the developers is "we're sorry, just live with it?"
I could write an essay on this but I'll focus on a company which publicly represent this hostility - Blizzard. Blizzard is an entertainment company in an industry which has a tremendous amount of competition. And many Blizzard games are paid for directly from the user's pockets so the customers are paying. But yet, even with this, the contempt the developers have towards their users is immense. While I'm not a Blizzard fan but listening to people who are - they are not happy. Yet at the same time, even with this angry customer base, the developers kept saying they "knew best" demanding the customers do things their until the ceiling broke and the mass exodus we know today happened. There's no apology, no sympathy - nothing - just complete hostility against their users.
But of course, this is not just a story about Blizzard. It's Apple, Google, Firefox, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, etc. Just look at Microsoft and their heavy use of dark patterns to force Windows 10/11 options (another essay unto itself). And so many companies gleefully advertising "it's your choice" where "your choice" is slowly "depreciated" until "your choice" is no longer in the deeply hidden options menu.
What is it about this field that attracts people that are so adamant, so demanding that their users, their customers do it "their way or the highway"? People who seemly absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the burdens they force upon their users even when their users are saying, very loudly, "I don't want this."
In the past, I used software because I wanted to use it. These days, I use software, not because I want to, but because I have to.
(To be fair, it might not be the individual developers who is hostile but something in the decision making process is causing entire company to be hostile to their users.)
Amazon is going to win heavily aren't they?
Or to put it another way, 3 out of maybe 10 of my computers can checkout at the newly updated Walmart.com. For Apple's Online store, it says "please call us to make an order". For an indie online bookstore I went too and few others, it says "your browser is not supported" please use a new browser where some devices can't use a new browser. And other websites consistently giving errors and not load things.
For 10 out of 10 computers, Amazon.com works.
Why are web developers doing this?
I grew up at a time where the obsession was IE6 and backwards compatibility was key so that no customer was left behind. I remember we did everything to make sure as much of our customers can access our websites with fallback towards more universal and generic HTML standards that have stood the test of time.
I'm a tech person, I have access to the latest and greatest. Many of my friends, parents, relatives do not.
Now, so many websites demand the most up to date browser to work correctly and shop and apparently gives you no choice except to use it or not shop at their store except, well, Amazon. So Amazon they shop.
What's going on here?
I gave an two examples. One of internet companies keeping track of their users and selling the data to the highest bidder. The other is how it's easier to make money selling Orwellian central management software vs employee empowerment software.
It seems like it is much easier to succeed by doing evil things instead of doing good. Why is this?
Imagine if you had a large amount of knowledge, a tremendous amount that would rival any senior technical lead in the field of your choice. You don't know everything but you know you have more knowledge about your field then most the people in the room.
The problem? You have no "experience". Whatever history you had of how you gained your knowledge is gone. Your past is unknown to this new group of people and nothing you say about it makes any sense to them. The only thing that makes sense to them is the knowledge you have of your field.
The obvious answer is to start from the very bottom and spend years fighting your way back up from your pigeonholed existence. But, what other options are there? You know a lot but you have nothing to show for it.
I've been reading the biographies of some of the greatest minds in science. I'm saddened with what I found. While intellects will protect other intellects, intellects have little power to protect themselves against the majority who control society. While those like Oppenheimer got off with a small beating - Tesla and Turner were destroyed by the ruthlessness of the world they lived in and ironically, gave a future to.
To those who say modern society has grown beyond that, I'll point to modern 21st century Massachusetts as just one example of how the iron fist the leaders with the support of the majority has controlled intellectualism there.
(Of course, all these examples are nothing compared to some counties who slaughtered all their intellectuals during a populist revolution. Their biographies, unfortunately, were never written.)
What options are there for an intellect to protect themselves while still allowing them to continue studying what they desire?
There's another area in life where there is a lot of eyeballs looking at it. Vastly more than any open source software. Those are Hollywood Celebrities.
In theory, by having so many eyeballs look at the life of a celebrity, they can have a better understanding of said celebrity. Yet, celebrates somehow manage to surprise even their most argent followers by doing things unthinkable to them. There is so many eyeballs looking at them yet they all missed a very big "bug" that showed up unexpectedly.
Which takes me back to the open source world of more eyeballs equals less bugs and better software. What do you guys think of this mantra? Does it fulfill all the promises advocates of it make?
Which companies have no or optional name badges?
So I ask the HN crowd today, how can so many brains be wrong? How can millions of brains seeing the same problem come up with the wrong answer? If a million brains failed, would a billion or a trillion brains come up with the right answer?
What would happen if you took a bunch of them, lock them up in a room, and told them they can't leave until they created something interesting? What would be the output?
This interview style is very popular with a lot of tech companies. What's the logic behind it? What output does it produce?
I'm not really sure what more I can do. I just don't have the brainpower to keep everything in my brain at once. It's so bad that I don't even remember how my old programs work even though I'm pretty sure I'm the one who wrote it.
Does anyone have any advice?
Is there any possible to do both or are you forced to choose one or the other? Has anyone here worked under a full time manager who also writes great code at the same time?
There are very smart people who can solve issues and give solutions to the hard problems many people have but are otherwise very timid. These are people who need to be listened to but they usually aren't. I'm not sure why. (Though, when they are listened to, a lot of interesting things happens.)
I'm definitely not as smart as he is but I noticed that people too don't listen to me unless I start making a mess of things. Even then, there's a 50/50 chance of them listening to me or sending out their attack hounds to chase me away.
