Aceticon @ Aceticon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,627

Joined

2 yr. ago

I grew up in the 80s and most people around could only ever do the whole "check the oil level and add some more if needed" and the same for the water for the window wipers.

Granted, nowadays some people can't even do the latter.

I've met software developers who didn't know how to use Excel properly (in the sense of not even knowing they could use formulas).

I think that's very much for the reason you state: they "won’t go out of their way to learn a software they don’t even know they will use".

It's not just a "common man" thing, it's an everybody thing - there's just too much stuff and not enough time to learn it all, so even software developers might never find themselves in a situation were they have to understand Excel enough to know such simple things as how to use functions in the cells, how to use references to other cells or how to make some references be relative to a cell's position and other absolute.

Mind you, they'll probably learn it way faster than "common" people simply because so much of its advanced usage follows "programmer logic", but that still requires them to be forced to actually use it long enough and often enough that they put the effort into learning it.

Even the "problems" are only really a problem for those who value understanding how Tech works and hence see a lack of it as a problem (welcome to Lemmy!).

I'm not so sure that, in the greater scheme of things, not understanding the innards of Tech is a "problem" anymore than not knowing how to fix your own car is a "problem".

The only way I can see that it might be a problem in a more general sense of the word is if that's helping enabling enshittification because people don't understand Tech enough to be able to avoid or more away from enshittified options.

I too been in IT for over 20 years and most people I've seen using Macs were Graphics Designers and Marketing types.

I've seen but a handfull of IT Professionals using them and I've seen significantly more IT Professionals using Linux for work than Macs.

My experience covers a couple of countries and various industries since I've worked as a contractor (a kind of Freelancer) for most of the time so moved around a lot more than people working as permanent employees would.

Maybe one or two people I've seen using Macs cared about it being Unix under the hood and I think all of those were the above mentioned IT Professionals who used Macs.

People doing Graphics Design and other such digital media work (which is how Marketing types commonly ended up using it) really loved them because they were easy to use, had proper color calibration together with really great quality high resolution screens (the first properly supported 4K computer screens were Mac), plus the whole Adobe Suite as well as pretty much all other top professional design and media work software has full native Mac versions. These people were, however, not computer experts in the IT Professional sense of the word (even the Graphics Designers working on Tech Startups were tech users, not tech experts) and did not at all value the "Unix under the hood" characteristic of Macs.

If they work professionally in IT, then they're by definition "IT Professionals".

Absolutelly, the definition of "IT Professional" starts at lower (or maybe the correct term would be "more generic, maintenance-oriented and less specialized") levels of domain expertise than "Software Developer" and most people out there's contact with an "IT Professional" won't include a software developer (even in the average business, which is unlikely to directly use Programmers but will almost certainly use the services of System Administrators and Network Engineers), but saying they're not IT Professionals would be a bit like saying that the people who design cars aren't Auto Industry Professionals, only Car Mechanics are.

Mind you, I don't disagree that Programming is closer to Engineering: my point is that Engineering IT Systems is still a profession in IT, just like car design (in the technical sense) is both an Engineering practice and a profession in the Auto Industry.

IMHO,

Windows has completelly stopped its trend of becoming less shit over time and has actually started going backwards.

Modern Macs (having used both, I would say they aren't really direct descendants of the original Macs but rather they're major redesigns) already started at a point when usuability could be done better, kept improving for longer and, even though they stopped improving in terms of usability, unlike Windows they haven't gone back.

Linux is the only one that still keeps on improving (though usuability-wise it started ever further back than Windows), though slower than the others and often in a two-steps-forward-and-one-back fashion, so it's about to go past Windows (one might stay that it has already done so in usability and is only the large number of Windows-only applications that keeps Windows ahead) and hopefully will eventually pass Macs too.

Whilst what I expect for Linux has a big dollop of hopefulness, for the rest I think it's pretty obvious that Windows has never surpassed Macs in terms of usability and will never do.

Gotta love it when you come into a bit of a bitch & moan article about Tech and end up learning something new about Human Physiology and Medicine.

Cheers for that!

I suspect that back in the day there was a generation that were "the only ones who knew how cars worked" (in that it had a far higher number of people who could do their own car repairs).

It's the product of having grown up in a time when that technology was going from niche to widespread - a time when its still clunky, fickle and needs a lot of babysitting and before it was mainly made "so simple that any idiot can use it" - so if you were one of those people who got into it back then, you were forced to understand it more in depth merely to keep it going. Those who grew up before that simply never became familiar with it, whilst those who grew up later only ever had to understand how to the mature-stage user interfaces of that Tech, which are designed for maximum accessibility with minimum learning curve (which amongst other things means minimizing the need for deep understanding of what's going on) and did not need to know how to maintain it since "maintenance" had by then become "get a new one and click this button to migrate your info".

You can see a similar thing going on with 3D printers: earlier models are fickle and need all sorts of tweaks and understanding of what's going on to get decent prints out of them plus required frequent maintenance (amongst other things, you quite literally have to periodically retighten the screws of whatever kit FDM printer you got otherwise print quality worsens over time) whilst the later consumer-oriented products make everything simpler.

Couldn't agree more.

The Economy (namelly GDP) is a deeply flawed metric when what one wants is The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number (the basic Leftwing principle), since it's a Trade-centric metric hence measures just one part of the human experience and even that done in a pretty unrepresentative way - either countrywide numbers that ignore the proportion of it per people are used or when we do get per-capita numbers they're based on mean values (that suffer from the "if 1 guy has 10 chickens and 9 have 0 chickens, then in average each has 1 chicken" problem) never the mode which is the one that best covers most people's experience.

The point about housing is especially puignant because it's how a lot of GDP "growth" was fabricated during the last couple of decades: house prices go up which is counted as more raw GDP but the house price Inflation (which is the entirety of that price raise, as there was no actual improvement of the houses themselves) is not counted in the Inflation index used to Deflate the raw GDP to create the supposedly inflation-free Real GDP (the official one) so house price increases make that figure which has been made politically important look good whilst the thing is not at all good - the value of a house has no utility value for those who live in it (who would have to sell the house to realize it but also buy another one at equally inflated prices so ultimatelly gain nothing from high prices) whilst it presents a massive problem for those who don't own their own house (also because rent prices follow house prices) with, for example, the situation in Portugal that the average age a person leaves their parents' home is 34 and half the people who graduate with a Degree leave the country because salaries are low and cost of living (which for a recent graduate is more than half housing) are very high in proportion to it, something that's also causing lower birth rates in one of the most aged countries in the World since people have children later and don'thave as much available money to pay for the costs of them, hence have fewer (in average below the number that's necessary to keep the population number steady).

GDP goes up but homeowners saw no improvement since their house is not in fact any better and in some cases are even worse of because if they want to get a better house - say, to get a room for their children - the difference they have to pay in price between the old one and new one is larger, whilst those who do not own their house have to pay larger rents, so have less free money for other things since salaries have not gone up anywhere as fast. Only "investors" are better of from this, and they're a tiny fraction of Society (and here in Portugal a large part, if not most, don't even live here, so they're not even in this Society).

And this is just one thing were The Economy and how it's measured is unrepresentative. Don't get me started on Ecology and how Nature is treated in this has having little or no value for people.

Alfred Nobel never created a Nobel Prize for Economics.

Instead what there is is the Swedish Central Bank Prize For Economics In Honor Of Alfred Nobel, which is not a Nobel Prize but they convinced the Nobel Committee (using a lot of $$$) to treat it as one.

Now, I don't know if this guy is right or if he is wrong, but trying the whole Appeal To Authority thing using a "Nobel Prize" which is no such thing to throw some generic criticism on other Political models has a strong whiff of Propaganda.

PS: Also his arguments are very much cherry picking. For example I'm Portuguese and calling European Integration a "remarkable success story" for Portugal is hilarious - the actual reality was that Portugal grew massively when it kicked out Fascism (and the country was very Leftwing back then, so for example invested massively in Education and created a National Healthcare System) accelerated a bit when it joined the EU (because the money the EU sent to help with integration of what was then one of the poorest countries in the EU added up to a significant fraction of the GDP), then braked hard when the EURO came to be, culminating in the aftermath of the 2008 Crash with the country's Economy significantly shrinking and the Troika coming over and forcing Austerity (which later even Cristine Lagarde admited was "the wrong thing to do") and forced Privatization of actual profit-making state companies creating veritable anchors around the neck of the Economy in the country (for example, Telecoms are compared to average incomes very expensive in Portugal, a "rent" borne by the rest of the Economy which pulls down for example small businesses and kills business opportunities that rely on widespread digital access). Looking back all the best things that were done for Portugal were very much Leftwing such as investment in quality Public Education, a National Health Service and large programs of public housing (which were stopped decades ago, so now we have a giant house price bubble).

It wasn't Capitalism that pulled Portugal out of the shitter, it was kicking out the Fascists and basically Social Democracy (and I don't mean in the Portuguese Social Democrat Party, who are hard right with have nothing at all to do with the actual ideology in the name of the party), topped up with charity from the EU (in a way good while it lasted but then again went into all the wrong things, so the country has disgracefully bad rail-service everywhere but the North-South between the two main cities but lots and lots of underused highways built with that money).

There is a real possibility that the person who would be best for Palestine would be Trump simply because he doesn't follow through on what he says and is too incompetent when he does.

It's a very sad state of affairs that the US Presidential Candidate that might be the least Nazi-supporting one is Trump, not because of his ideology not being Fascist but because he's incompetent, inconsistent and has a tendency for non-interventionism.

You have it backwards: going after the natural voters of the other side in a two-party system is the riskiest thing you can do because the other party has a massive advantage with those voters which is an historical track record of telling them what they want to hear and them voting for it - rightwingers trust them on Rightwing subjects and are used to voting for them.

Even if (and it's a massive massive if) a party succeeds at it once due to the party on the other side having deviated too much from its traditional ideology, all it takes for the party on the other side is to "get back to its roots" to recover most of those lost votes and subsequently win, whilst meanwhile the leftmost party that moved to the right has created for itself an obstacle in their own "going back to its roots" in the form of a section of the electorate which feels they were betrayed.

Sure, they'll eventually get it back if they themselves quickly "go back to their roots", but it will take several electoral cycles.

Further, if that gap remains too long on the Left even in a two party system it would create room for a third to grow, starting by local elections, then places like Congress, then Senate and eventually even the Presidency.

One of of the key ways in which First Past The Post maintains a Power-Duopoly is because growing a party enough to challenge the rest in multiple electoral circles takes time and the duopoly parties will try to stop it (generally by changing back their policies to appeal to the core voters of that new Party).

The US itself once had the Whig Party as one of the power duopoly parties and that exists no more.

The Democrats abandoning the Left is not a stable configuration for them and carries both the risk that the Rightwing electorate sees them as fake and the Leftwing electorate feels betrayed, and now they're stuck in the middle with a reduced vote.

Whilst the first paragraph does make some sense, it presumes that in such a situation the Republicans would not conclude it's the style of the candidate rather than his ideas that caused the rout. That might be a little optimist considering that the traditional Republicans' were just as far right economically before and almost as right in Moral issues, but they had a different style of candidate (remember Reagan?).

It might also be a little optimist to expect an absolute walloping of anybody, Republican or Democrat.

That said, it's a valid scenario, though it relies on very low probability events.

The second paragraph is inconsistent with every single thing the Democrats have done in their pre-electoral propaganda, from the whole "vote us or get Trump" (something which wouldn't scare the Right) to the raft of pre-election promises on Left-wing subjects like student debt forgiveness or tightening regulations on giants such as Telecoms a little bit. If they really thought they could win with only votes stolen from the Right, they would be making promises which appeal to the Right, not the Left.

Besides, the whole idea that Rightwing voters would go for the less-Rightwing party rather than the more-Rightwing party is hilarious: why go for the copy if you can get the real deal?

From what I've seen in other countries were Center-Left Parties totally dropped their appeal to the Left and overtly went to appeal to the Right, they got pummeled because the Maths don't add up and, as I said above, Rightwing votes will choose the "genuine article" over the "wannabes".

It's not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.

Three points:

• Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn't stop reminding us of in everything but, "strangely", not this subject) and isn't even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump's word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
• If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a "otherwise it's Trump" strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn't much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it's very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
• Some people simply put their moral principles above "yeah but" excuses and won't vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.

In summary:

• Trump's Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris' is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
• A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they're supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the "wrong" ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that's the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it's the least bad choice.
• Some people can't just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn't even a "choose a good thing" but actually a "choose a lesser evil", and "Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies" is pretty strong as moral principles go.

Yeah, Welsh is even more special ...

Yeah, well, the most racist Western states (such as the US, UK and Germany) all support the Last White Colonialist State in the World against the "violent" locals who "don't have Western values" (i.e. are not White).

If there's one thing this has shown is that the power elites in some Western countries still have the very same values as they did back in the late 1900s (which in the case of Germany is the same kind of thinking that fueled Nazism).

Anti-muslim Racism has been pretty common and accepted in the West since even before 9/11 (though it definitelly exploded in the aftermath of it) plus Jews are seen as Whites Of A Different Religion (it's not for nothing that Zionists since the very beginning constantly repeat the "Israel has Western values" mantra).

So for those people the entire reading of the situation, judgment of the actions of the participants and definition of what's an acceptable or unaccetable response is anchored on what their anti-Muslim and pro-White prejudices tell them is the character of everybody in each of the sides involved (or, in simple terms, who are the "good guys" for whom everything is justifiable and the "bad guys" whose actions are always evil).

This is why so many Liberals ended up siding with American Fascists in their defense of an ethno-Fascist (i.e. Nazi-like) regime commiting ethnic Genocide - they too aways judged people based on their etnicity, differing only from one another in the list of "presumed good" and "presumed bad" ethnicities, and in this specific case both shared "Jews" in their list of "good ethnicity" (the Fascists because they saw them as Westerners - i.e. White - and the Liberals because they saw them as Victims following the Holocaust, a view heavilly propagandized by Zionists) and "Muslims" in the list of "bad ethnicity" (curiously both because they're not White, and both via the cultural differences between them and "Westerners", though Fascists and Liberals disliked different elements the culture of "Muslims" - I use quotes because whilst they see it as a single culture, it's not, not even close).

That's a good point.

Ever since I've became more aware of those I've found myself doing similar kind of "disarming" of such falacies when I notice I'm using them.

My point it's that it generally feels like swimming against the current.

I'd say a lot of those things are the result of cognitive shortcuts.

It kinda makes sense to make a lot if not most decisions by relying of such shortcuts (hands up anybody who whilst not having a skin problem will seek peer-reviewed studies when chosing what kind of soap to buy) because they reduce the time and energy expediture, sometimes massivelly so.

Personally I try to "balance" shortcuts vs actual research (in a day to day sense, rather than Research) by making the research effort I will put into a purchase proportional to the price of the item in question (and also taking in account the downsides of a missjudgement: a cheap bungee-jumping rope is still well worth the research) - I'll invest more or less time into evaluationg it and seeking independent evaluations on it depending on how many days of work it will take to be able to afford it - it's not really worth spending hours researching something worth what you earn in 10 minutes of your work if the only downside is that you lose that money but it's well worth investing days into researching it when you're buying a brand new car or a house.

What's interesting is how, even when knowing these biases, one has a tendency to often have and display at least some of them.

(At least, that's the case for me)