I've seen that about Ubuntu a few times. Can someone provide me with a TLDR or a good summary article of what's happened to them? Also is it their server stuff too or just desktop? (I use Ubuntu on my home server and have for years)
It's not training. It's quite intuitive. Voting for/against something is common in many scenarios, not just from Reddit. And most people will associate up with good and down with bad.
If you like something, you want to reward it, and if you dislike something, you want to do the opposite.
With the vote buttons right there, it was inevitable this is how it would end up.
Even more logically, people know that higher-voted items get more visibility and lower-voted items get less, so if you like something you're more likely to want others to see it. Therefore, upvote it to send it higher up the tree. And send it down to hide it.
There's a difference between one person doing something and 10% of the population doing it. The latter would have a meaningful impact, but the former would not.
And the key part of my point is the average individual cannot make 10% of the population do anything.
If 10% of the population are vegetarians, it has nothing to do with what any single person did. A single person is almost always powerless to affect the world.
Even when we had a few streaming services, we'd end up pirating some stuff that was available because we incorrectly assumed it wasn't on one of them and it's just too annoying to have to look up where something is every time.
So we'd tend to go the piracy route first if we were seeking something out and only use the streaming services if we knew off the top of our heads where something was.
No individual average person can do anything of significance to fight climate change or have a meaningful impact on the global environment. Only governments or massive organizations can.
If you could do an alternate reality type thing, where one version of you lives a perfect life, environmentally speaking, and the other version lives the worst, the world would be the same at the end of both.
When smartphones first took off, each new one was a large upgrade. But each passing year sees new phones being more and more iterative. There's hardly any difference at all anymore between individual years.
I'm at the point now where I keep my phones until they break or stop getting security updates.
It has nothing to do with profits. It's more profitable to have everyone work from home. Upper managers and executives simply prefer having everyone in the office because they like it. It's their preference.
People aren't that logical. Most people feel more pain losing something than never getting it in the first place (eg: rolling back an accidental raise would be worse to someone than not getting the raise at all)
If you tell people to get back to work or lose 3% pay, you'll get more takers than offering people a 3% bump. Although they'll be very disgruntled of course.
It's not because of commercial real estate that offices are forcing people back.
It's simply because managers who are in charge of making that decision prefer to be in the office.
They like everyone in the office, so they're forcing it on everyone. Either because it makes them feel more powerful to look at all their underlings, because they enjoy working face-to-face (probably how they got high up in the company), or because they suck at their jobs and can only micro-manage by looking over people's shoulders
But then when you do see the nutrition label, it ends up acting as an ad that it's a healthier drink.