I think crowdsourcing's issue is with the experience. For a customer, crowdsourcing requires more effort than plan google searching for example. You need to submit your issue, come back, edit/comment. Bad experience is much more frequent than good ones. And a neutral experience is closer to a bad experience which might result in the user not going through crowdsourcing again. Good luck with the new direction
I think this is spot on. We used to underplay the experience issue, but then we realized a poor user experience often hinders access to the best savings.
What made this worse was the animosity between customers and experts. It was expected between competing experts, but the concept of the "award" (and by necessity "switching award") caused tension in all directions. We still had many great results, but not to the level needed to build a great business. The difference with the current system is night and day. Everyone is on the same side; it's even a little erie since we're so used to the previous animosity.
Very nice. Basic reimplementation is always useful to visualize abstract concept like Git. Git can be hard to new comers, as it's not always obvious what commit/branch/push does. Thank you
Let's agree that recall are not what they used to be for most of the car industry. Calling or not calling it a recall is a PR matter. I love tesla, but if an adapter is being changed, it's being recalled.
I couldn't agree more. There's absolutely no way this ruling can benefit the customers. The article mentionned that the FCC could rewrite its rule so to fit under the law, so it may very well be far from over.
The FCC could reclassify ISPs as telecommunication providers, which would remove the basis for the finding that the non-blocking and non-discrimination rules were (as common carrier rules, which cannot be applied to information service providers) outside their authority.
Of course, such a decision would itself be challenged, with ISPs arguing that what they do is not "telecommunications" as defined in the Telecommunications Act (I'm not saying this argument would be correct, but its not an uncontroversial position that the conflict between the order and the law can be remedied by simply reframing the order without a change in the law.)
I feel that the problems we face with antibiotics is similar to those we face with oil. It's common knowledge that the two will disappear and there's people out there fighting to try to protect us and we have a silent majority going about their business and ignoring all the warning signs. So yeah, tax 'em
I don't think it's the DRM that facilitate anything. DRM is a tradeoff between pirated stuff and going to the theater. Netflix is a legal Napster while Hollywood are content with DRM as good enough protection.
If you're interested in their content, then you are interested in the old content industries. If you aren't interested in their content, then what they do will have little effect on you personally.
I require a definition of how they are "considered harmful" because I seriously doubt that.
It corrupts the Open Web, meaning that one cannot simply decide to write a web client that will be able to display any standards-compliant content. It corrupts the W3C, in that it weakens their position in maintaining the Open Web, and lessens their value in the eyes of everyone except for the MPAA and its ilk. It harms culture, in that valuable cultural artifacts will be locked up in a way that will render them inaccessible to future generations, or people on non-blessed hardware.
I'm still waiting for the explanation of how it actually causes harm. Most of what you describe is not exactly harmful and is easily dealt with.
What's to stop someone from creating their own web client that doesn't implement that part of the standard? Where's it written that we have to follow every bit of the standard as it is written? Who gave this select group of people that much power over the open web?
Personally, I think the W3C was approaching being corrupted long before this issue. Maybe not in the terms you are describing right now but I've had issues with the behavior of various standard bodies and browser providers that happen to be a part of these bodies for a while now.
As for artifacts of culture being locked away from future generations, that is a potential problem. But we all know a silly DRM scheme isn't going to stop that. But that kind of thing has been in practice for a long time, way before we had electronics and the human race seems to be moving along in despite.
To me, a better solution is to show that people are willing to move on from these aspects of culture that everyone is so hung up on. If enough people show that these schemes don't work in the long run the content providers are more apt to change their ways. Look at the music industry, it's vastly different than it was just a few years ago and continues to change. Let these people attempt their schemes, in the long run it will matter little.
Doing nothing useful doesn't necessarily result in harm.
I keep pointing out that people are claiming that this is harmful in some personal way. I keep asking how. The best I've seen is that it creates harm to the standards, which is more about causing harm to the people who control the standards. This decision directly harms the standards body itself, it does not harm the open web. Corrupting the standards with bad decisions hurts the reputation of the standards body, which will eventually importance in the scheme of things. The open web will just move on to something else. The reason I say that is because if the web is truly open, it is free to ignore the "standards" it doesn't like. Meaning, the people who use it can choose to not participate. It's a standard because everyone agrees to use it together. If the people using the open web decide they don't like a browser that implements DRM they don't agree with, then they have the option to choose a browser that doesn't implement the DRM. If there isn't such a browser, the open web allows someone to create and share it with the masses.
If this decision actually causes harm to the open web, then it's not truly open because that implies no one can get around the decisions made by this select group of people. If that's the case, then the web doesn't sound very open as it stands today.
This entire thread was about hollywood. To say that we aren't interested in what hollywood produces is a strange assertion, or a rather narrow definition of "we".
