Unfortunately there's no real alternative way for us to store individual user settings. If you sign up for an account, then they will be attached to your account and no cookies are required - but for logged out users, "settings" and some form of "tracking" are inseparable, because we need a way to associate you with your chosen preferences!
"Social justice warriors" are a bogeyman you almost entirely made up in your own head, as evidenced by comments like this. For everyone one person who actually crosses the line into ludicrous with their pursuit of social justice, there are a dozen utterly invented ideas like this one from people who are terrified of social progress. The disturbing thing is it'll probably evolve into an accepted truth - right now it's your weak jibe, within a few days it'll be gleefully mocked on MRA forums as if it's a real thing, all without anyone ever sincerely raising this objection.
I'm no fan of PETA, but I do need to point something out to everyone: the reason you think all they do is publicity stunts is because those are the things that get publicity, and thus the things you hear about. But PETA is actually a pretty loose organization and there are people within it who do good work (or even if you disagree with it, real and not insane work).
e.g. in college I interviewed a PETA lobbyist who spent all his time just pursuing one simple, direct and sensible goal: he worked to bring new non-animal endocrinology tests that had been approved and adopted in Europe to the US and Canada, by encouraging the EPA and other agencies to usher them quickly through the regulatory approval process. Switching to the non-animal tests had basically no downsides and would result in thousands of fewer animals being experimented on, and all it needed was some regulatory attention.
Stuff like that seems entirely reasonable and even admirable to me, and I really wish PETA would focus entirely on that kind of thing and not on their ridiculous antics. But it is important to remember that there is some real work happening behind the publicity stunts.
True "original thought" can only exist if you believe in the divine or supernatural - which some do, and so be it. But unless you believe a thought was handed to a human from a god or a literal muse, then what is that thought? It's a product of the input processing machine that is the human brain.
Nobody's claiming that some things aren't, on a certain level, "more original" (for lack of a better word) than others. Definitely there are some works that make a point or express an idea or evoke a feeling in such a way that it seems like nobody has ever done it exactly like that before. Other works can be the opposite - weakly made points that feel like poor shadows of things that expressed the same ideas before.
But the point is that both such works, and all in between, are fundamentally the products of the outside world filtered through the human brain - every place a creator has seen, every conversation they've had, every story they've read and song they've heard, plays a role in the mental generation of every single thing they create. And the important thing is to understand that fundamental truth about creativity, and stop trying to draw hard lines between "original" and "unoriginal" work - or, I suppose, if you so choose, take the alternative and believe that some creativity comes from superhuman/divine sources.
Seconded. That is an excellent word that I'm surprised I'd never heard before. Finally, a replacement for "tautology" in those instances where I've always known it wasn't quite right but used it anyway!
It's linked as a big promo on the product page for the regular Watercooler subscription. That was a decision a long time ago when the "Special" wasn't necessarily going to be permanent. Will look into maybe adding it to the full product list now as well.
I did at first, yes, because I got bored of the "humour" of it all long before getting to the end. It's satire, but bad satire, because it undermines its own point - good design is not easy, and there's no evidence here that the author knows how to do it, just evidence that he's able to spot egregious over-design. So what point is it really making? And how does it add anything to a conversation about online advertising, or website design? Yeah, snarky commenters can wield this snarky piece as a cudgel to mock anything they don't like online - and that accomplishes what, exactly? It certainly doesn't make any kind of coherent argument for sleeker design - it says "many sites are overdesigned, this site is laughably underdesigned, and the correct answer lies somewhere in between! I'm not going to tell you where because that's a complex and challenging question to which I don't actually know the answer, but I'm going to pretend the answer is painfully obvious so if you defy any of my personal preferences I can mock you!"
That site is awfully snarky for what amounts to a heap of shit. There's a huge world between blatant over-design and simply ignoring every single principle of how to effectively communicate information.
The way that people learn to use an application is via learning exact navigation paths through menus, and which icons to press. They refuse to, or fail to, learn the basic ideas behind what they are doing, which means that they have very fragile knowledge of how to use applications.
This is definitely true, and something that has always bothered me. Happens a lot in offices. At a previous job, I was given the task of laying out a newspaper's classified ads, which involved one of those lovely pieces of ancient software running on a purposely-outdated machine to keep it active, which the company probably paid an exorbitant amount of money for from some B2B company ten years prior, and now was their only way of managing the workflow from ad sales to layout. And of course I was trained by being shown a series of mindless steps: click this, press this, enter this, click that, etc. I did it once the way I was shown, then promptly set about actually figuring out how the terrible software works - naturally, it turned out the step-by-step instructions were circuitous and grossly inefficient after being passed on and followed verbatim from clueless user to clueless user over the years, so literally nobody in the entire company actually understood how the software worked.
That's an excellent point. Supposedly the OURA does learn different rhythms and schedules, but I don't know how flexible it is or whether it's prepared to make proper recommendations for people on what I guess I'll call "non-traditional schedules". Hopefully it does, or will.
I don't think the anti-linux comment was without valid observations, but the reason it also courted such kickback was that it unnecessarily dealt in absolutes. It's one thing to say you don't currently recommend Linux to average users because there is still a noticeable barrier to entry - it's another to say "Linux will always be completely unstable and never useful for business", and then tack on the assertion that some of the biggest problems are "hating" commercial/business software, plus a bewildering kicker that Apple computers are also useless...
As I understand it, the OURA doesn't actually require the cloud, which is nice. The recording and processing is actually done in the ring which is damn impressive - that tiny thing crams in memory and an ARM processor, and it can run without offloading data to the app for 3 weeks. The app, as far as I can tell, operates without the need for the cloud, and the sharing partnership with the online platform is an entirely optional thing - however, some of this isn't spelled out quite as clearly or as prominently as it probably should be.