Hmm, may be you're right about UX designers not wanting to explain. For instance, I certainly won't want that vertical bar for aesthetic reasons. It's just hard to defend objectively.
Yes a bunch of individuals got rich, but my position is that their tax payments (and wider economic contributions) never justified the cost of maintaining the colonies.
It would have probably been better if the government just gave the upper class money directly, rather than indirectly by paying for navies to acquire land for them.
Agree, except the product price could be right on the buy button. Now the analytics won't tell you whether I clicked on the buy button with an intent to buy, or did I just want to know how much it is.
Although i'm 50/50 on showing the price on the button, i absolutely see your point! I think for devices that are "known" - like, say, a pair of headphones - i suppose i might want to know the price right away...however, for other "unknown" devices, i'd actually like to learn more about the product, its features, maybe use-cases, etc...and as one other person rightly noted even the "Why" i might want/need the product...then again, all of this info could still be shown, and displaying the price shouldn't harm that...so yeah, i gues you're right: they should show the price on the button. :-)
There's a video about an octopus solving a maze: https://youtu.be/7__r4FVj-EI?si=FH2QsL7BxlJ4h7KF. You could call that reactionary too, but at some point we have to admit octopuses do have a higher level of intelligence than we'd assume from an animal their size.
https://adnankhan.space/
Just a couple of posts there atm, I write about usability, interaction design, service design and other things that sit on the UX spectrum of work!
They're just advertising the tech and the platform. Probably so people could come up with some real use cases and apps for it... otherwise what's the point of introducing it a year earlier.
My biggest gripe with Youtube right now is how they've left channel subscription just as a long list. I have hundreds of subscriptions, and they are clearly around a few of my interests...
this is one feature i wish more 3rd party clients had, instead of just sorting channels into categories, only do new videos in playlists which is easier to manage.
They used to let you sort subscriptions into "Collections", but they removed this feature in 2015. I remember they teased they might bring it back in 2021, but I haven't seen much come of it. [1]
Great. This is from 50 years ago, and many of the ideas shown have come true. What about the next 50 years? Any video suggesting what we'd be able to see around the house in 2070?
On the other hand, people do not mind giving things for free. Those recipes are not published by some chef that gets paid for creating them. It's the community that created them. If people could easily self-host ad-free catalog of their recipes with a global catalog for a cost of internet service they already have, they probably would. But the emphasis is on ease of use and discoverability.
Largely triggered by the fact that you can only judge the value of information after the consumption. And consumption of information is a one time event. So the only really established payment is subscriptions which people seem to be reluctant to engage with for certain types of information.
I have the bad feeling that in 2070 its more about barbecuing rats on a stick over a fire in an old oil drum while having a shotgun on the ready if the canibals show up...
In 50 years human-size labor robots will be common in households that are middle class and above. They'll recharge locally, and won't be meant to travel great distances while powered on, so their battery packs won't need to be massive. They'll be capable of performing a decent variety of mundane household labor, including laundry, dishes, mowing the lawn, picking up / organizing rooms of the house, mopping floors, cleaning the bathroom. We'll organize these spaces to an extent for their benefit, to better comply with how they do what they do. Appliances will be marketed for use by humans only, or mixed use (either robot or human can operate).
As a consequence of these robots humans will increasingly forget how to pick up after themselves (as a routine) and or never learn it in the first place as children.
What, you don't have a refrigerator? What, you don't have a washing machine? What, you don't have a television? What, you don't have a dish washer? What, you don't have a microwave? What, you don't have an Alice bot? And so on it goes.
Work spaces will have similar robots to pick up after employees and perform other assisting tasks in the office. Silicon Valley or its equivalent will get these robots first as a new perk that will be lampooned initially (the nerds that can't even take care of themselves) and then it'll spread across corporate America because of the productivity benefits and convenience aspect.
The same bots will displace very large amounts of labor in retail outlets like Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS, Costco; and fastfood chains.
It's not a question of if this is going to happen. It's a question of whether it takes closer to 25 years or closer to 50 years (I'd bet on 35-50 years) to hit an inflection point where the robot avalanche gains significant momentum. These won't be hyper competent everything robots, like you see portrayed in eg I, Robot (the Will Smith movie), they'll be quite specialized and quite limited compared to science fiction, but still very useful.
In the style that the smartphone ate one thing after another, the humanoid robot assistant will eat one labor task after another, and that's how they'll be advertised initially. Robot v1 does X; Robot v2 now does X, Y; Robot v3 now does X, Y, Z. It'll be a productivity arms race in the early days, and then the improvements will rapidly slow down and the robots will become a fashion competition or something else, as they saturate the easy wins in labor elimination.
I've actually wondered if we'd be faster to full home automation if you made slight modifications to the home itself to enable more purpose built factory style automation to take over.
My wife watched that video, and was nodding along... "It's a bit wasteful of water, but I like the idea!" And then the video ended with "And the latest version is transparent."
She yelped "why the HELL would they end with a statement like that, and not explain or go into any kind of detail?!?!?"
The only doubt I have about this is the amount of electricity this personal labor servant robot will cost. I can imagine that what you describe is a certainty for the rich, but I do wonder where the cut-off will be for the rest of society. I can imagine a reality where those who don’t have such robots, will want to work hard to get them, and a number of lower-cost, less energy intensive helper bots will cater to the needs of those of us who can’t afford the full standalone-Alfred model.
There will be a billionaire with a 100 of these to do random shit with.
Electricity is super cheap, really. You can move an entire car a mile for $0.025 - $0.125, depending on your state. I can’t see electricity prices being an issue unless we really bungle the building of energy capacity in the near future.
Electricity is usually much much cheaper than food calories — 2500 kcal is about 3 kWh, apply your local energy and food costs — so electricity won’t be the limiting factor, but construction cost/longevity and AI quality will be.
Assuming equal capacity (not any time soon but might happen eventually), anywhere that electricity was cheaper than Germany’s famously expensive average of US$0.45/kWh would be able to afford to replace any human labourer with a robot, even if the humans were at the UN threshold for abject poverty (US$1.90/day, which is why I gave German electricity in USD rather than EUR) and that human somehow worked productively for 33h45m per day.
Some people might (probably not that many on an absolute level, tens of millions worldwide possibly), most people will have what they have now but much less new and more beat up, as the market gets saturated with used/fixed appliances. That's the good future, the bad one is where everything is garbage and can't be fixed at all.
Everything is already garbage and can't be fixed at all, so I'm afraid I can't see why that would change.
Individuals can put in the effort and make their life more repairable, maintainable and higher quality. But it takes time and money, which is short supply for most.
While I agree-ish, we already have very cheap general purpose cleaners you can hire. I imagine a robot will be more expensive and less robust. I can see stores and corporate offices, but idk about a middle class home.
In 50 years, I see gated communities of wealthy people being guarded by fixed mounted automatic AI controlled machine guns, or high powered lasers.
We won't have hugh areas of homlessness because the powers at be will be actively using that Broken the Window Pane theory to harass people to the point they commit suicide.
Technology will advance, but only the wealthy will be able to afford it.
The wealthy capitalists will rely more heavily on Globalism to peddle their wares.
I don't even foresee a chit show like current India. Meaning the wealthy live in ivory towers butted up to absolute slums.
The American wealthy will not stand for that. They don't want to see the squalor.
(In all seriousness, I'm concerned about how America is going to treat the huge spike in homelessness post Covid. I don't like what I'm seeing now. Meaning the powers at be are just harassing the homeless until they move along. I'm embarrassed the way my town of Sausalito made a minor problem of homelessness (Anchorouts whom have been there for over a century), and made the current recipients of a ham handed approach to rid Richardson bay of anyone who is poor much worse. Yes--that last sentance is grammatically terrible, but I'm just to tired to fix it.)
