The idea behind this is that there is always a B list of design tasks that are not mission-critical and therefore hard to prioritize.Whitespace is here to take on those tasks so the in-house team can make progress on the main roadmap items.
Has any government presented a cost benefit analysis of all the available options to address this situation?
Like most things in life this isn't black and white, so where is the analysis of the pros and cons, worst case projections, etc of not doing anything / going into lockdown / other alternatives.
I for one have not seen it.
Shouldn't such an analysis be the basis of any decisions we make? It follows therefore that it needs to be first of all DONE, then publicly presented and argued from all angles before a decision is made.
But, no. A decision has been made and presented to us. We can rest assured, they say, the science CLEARLY shows that this is the right decision. Then - at least in the UK - later they admitted that the economic impact and the following consequences have not yet been looked into.
The arguments should not be about lockdown or not. It is fair and everyone duty to scrutinise government decisions, not because they should have done the exact opposite, but simply because they haven't presented a robust case for what they're doing.
Let's not forget, it is their ONLY job to represent us - a job all of us are paying for -, and do things that are in our best interest, yet they fail to properly justify decisions.
Anyone who without question agrees to locking down the economy might want to consider that bailouts, stimulus packages, unemployment benefits, and anything else the government does is paid for with our money.
Add to this the borderline misleading way covid deaths are classified and a dozen other similar issues and you have yourself a very interesting situation which should be raising questions in everyone.
When someone fails to do that and proceeds to pick apart minutia I consider that a waste of time - quite interesting that you consider that the highest standard of discussion and sound reasoning.
If you're waiting for science to put a number on everything before you consider it you'll be disappointed in the long run.
The brand has a momentum, even if things start getting worse for customers there isn't an immediate response on a large scale.
A certain quality is important for the "true" advocates, but we're a small minority. Growth is driven by at scale customers who don't notice these issues because they're buying the products for different reasons.
In this context, improving quality to keep the hardcore fans happy costs money, but doesn't impact the bottom line significantly in the short term.
Growth is the only goal at this scale and that's driven by other strategies and not hardcore fans.
I guess long story short is corporations are cash machines and product quality does not play an important part at this scale.
Being practical means things that are doable. So it makes sense to limit whatever you do to that, otherwise you'll be in the domain of unrealistic / never gonna work.
The problem is, what is doable is not an absolute. What's practical is different for everyone. You'll define it based on what you experienced / heard about. Fact is you only hear what resonates with you, aka you're not even going to consider things that seem ridiculous, based on your experience.
There's two sides to every story and it seems you're missing one. In my view, being practical is a way of talking yourself out of ideas that you don't want to do.
Look at this way, if you stick to being practical you'll only every do things that have a close to 100% chance of working (in your view). This would only work if you knew everything. Absolute knowledge.
You have no idea what is possible, so do your best (keep trying) and don't overanalyze.
I've heard somewhere you can turn this mentality around by forcing yourself to come up with reasons this could work, rather than why it couldn't. Make a list.
There seems to be a lack of (affordable) tools for doing quantitive research in the early stages of product development, so figured I'd build something for my fellow UXers, Information Architects and Product people.
Currently in early access, goal is to make it as useful as possible with additional features + more research methods and ultimately come up with a pricing if there is interest.
All feedback and thoughts appreciated. Thanks!
Secondly, there is no absolute, objective truth and there never will be.
The best we can do is to individually strive for telling the truth and hope for the best.
You're talking about alternatives to the status-quo. Sure, there's lots to be improved, that's not what the disagreement is. The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future, or - like the Guardian suggests - burning it all to the ground because capitalism = bad.
How is staying blind to what you're actually thinking good in any way? All it does is make us a reactionary creature, which is exactly what you need to be to burn a whole society to the ground.
Thanks Guardian, this is exactly what we need. More violence, more escalation, more rash decisions. Journalism 2019 - and they ask for your donations.
Anyone who actually knows what mindfulness is can immediately see that they're building the biggest strawman ever with the sole purpose of forcing anti capitalist agenda down our throats.
Remember this: It used to be that news were facts and you formulated an opinion on them. Now the news is opinion and you're trying to figure out what the facts were.
Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really.
If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, but that's reality.
Flash got me started in web design as a kid and put me on a path to earning a good living. Lots of things changed since then but I want to hear your thoughts on one specifically.
It used to be cool to try things and put something together that in the grand scheme of things is kind of bad. I get the feeling that's not the case anymore.
Seems like there's so much pressure to sell the image of you being an expert, there is no room to try wild things and see what happens - which is the basis for learning and development btw. What we get then is everyone copying the "expert" patterns, but hardly anyone doing anything original or truly creative, because it feels risky.
This is probably true for a lot of other creative endeavours that have big $ behind them - the movie industry comes to mind. Sure, there are more movies being made now than ever, but it sure as hell doesn't feel like we're in the most creative era and you know it's got nothing to do with the tools.
Someone please tell me otherwise.
I do think there is an opportunity nowadays, because commercial software has gone down a highly disliked path of anti privacy, clickbait, optimize for addiction.
Now seems to be the time for alternatives to pop up that: - Look and feel good enough - Open source - Respecting privacy - Immune to (most) criticism because of blockchain or similar
Especially new people starting out and needing a portfolio, seems like a win - win for everyone involved.
Seems to me that free software community is lacking UI/UX Designers and so looks and feels considerably less "cool" than commercial counterparts. What do you think?
Having a better chance of defending yourself if you're armed stands to reason. Since when is that controversial? Isn't that evident to everyone?
Disarming is a solution. If everyone would come together as one and hand their weapons in because THEY wanted to.
Do you really think forcibly trying to take guns from people is a solution? Damn, talk about absurd.
I don't understand this sentiment of "even with guns it's not gonna work so let's just roll over and take it".
If you personally don't think you'll be better off that's fine, but surely you get that if someone WANTS to fight tooth and nail in self-defense he should be given a chance to do so.
being white was “very” or “extremely important” to their identity expressed strong feelings of white solidarity believed whites suffered a meaningful amount of discrimination
with people likelier to harbour angry racial resentments?
There is no explanation found, we're just accept this as fact and throw out further conclusions from this basis.
On another note, I can see why The Economist wants you to become a paying subscriber.
How else will they have the resources to put together these important pieces that will surely make the world a better place and keep people informed about these essential issues in society. A prime example of what they stand against according to their motto: "... timid ignorance obstructing our progress."