My old person trait is a belief that anyone that works full time should be able to aspire to own their own home, support their wife and kids and still have a little left over to save at the end of the month.
Edit: It kind of sucks that I wrote a comment about making work pay like it used to and people are arguing about whether I'm a mysoganist that wants women back in the kitchen. (I'm not, I'm happy for women to work as much as they want too, it'd just be nice for double income homes to be doing it out of choice and thriving because of it, rather than having to do it out of necessity.)
Whoa there. Won't anyone ever think of the children-level executives? How could they afford a new Lamborghini or a new yacht when they also have to pay you?
What about the executives' children? They need a ten grand a month per year they've been alive (so when they're three it's thirty grand a month) salary. We need someoneanyone to sit on the scholarship boards run by the company.
That's a fact, not an opinion that implies contempt, prejudice or a hatred of women.
You can try to deny millions of years of evolution if you want.
People don't like to admit it, but despite all the advantages of our modern society, our DNA is essentially unchanged from when we were all cavemen.
If you were a cave woman and you had the option of two cavemen who are essentially identical except for that one makes a successful hunt everyday and the other only makes a successful hunt every week. Who would you choose to help you raise a family? And vice versa, if you were the caveman and you knew that women were selective of men based upon who can provide well for the raising of children, would you want to be making a successful hunt daily, or weekly?
We can cry about how unfair it is, but the vast majority of women today, whether they want to admit it or not, absolutely consider economic status as something to weigh up when selecting a partner, men do also consider this, but not nearly to the same extent. Please don't misinterpret anything I'm saying here as resentful or hateful, it's not it's life, you can choose not to accept this, but it doesn't change the facts.
Inb4, yh but we're not cavemen any more. I've already addressed that.
The fact that one working man could support his whole family just a few decades ago didn't mean women shouldn't, couldn't or didn't work, just that they didn't have to.
It should be an option for those outside the top 1%. Let's be honest, plenty of jobs suck and a lot of people who look after a children professionally are not the brightest sparks in the fire (at least where I am). Why should someone be forced to do a crap job then give all that salary to someone less cultures than the to look after their kids. Why not just do it themselves?
If one of you has a good, full-time job that should cover basic living expenses. It should also not be looked down. My wife is a stay at home mum, she is also a feminist and I certainly did not not force her to to work. The only thing we regret is the way people (especially other women but not only) look down on her.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I think having a stay at home parent is kind of yesteryear, and should probably be viewed as such for a multitude of reasons, but I think, full time salary and able to support what are basically three people's needs + savings is not an unreasonable demand. The more this is commonplace, the more everyone can afford to support everyone else collectively, since only a quarter of the total population would really need to be working at any given time, and the rest could be paylessly employed to manage each other. Beyond just stay at home moms or dads, it could entail any number of people in any number of living situations, but the free time means that taking care of the elderly, disabled, children, or whatever else could just be split among the local social network, instead of just kinda being foisted onto underfunded social systems which should more realistically not be the first option.
Probably this is the main driver of why the social fabric of america is coming undone, that I can think of, but it's also not so easy to solve, because none of this is really something you can solve long-term in a capitalist economy, where there are always incentives to undercut your competition by underpaying your workers, or outsourcing. Or really in any system that prioritizes short term gains over long term ones.
I’m an equal opportunity house person. I wouldn’t mind staying home taking care of the kids while the wife worked, living in our owned home and having something extra at the end of the month
You can learn what buttons feel like, and where they are (and the same for knobs) so yo ucan operate your vehicle without having to take your eyes off the road.
Tablets are sleek and shiny, and fundamentally horrible as a car interface.
I don’t necessarily have an issue with the screens. The problems are:
Commonly accessed features like choosing a media source, setting environmental controls, or even lighting, are buried several “clicks” deep. These need to be surface-level and need zero distraction from driving to interact with.
The “touch” part of touch-screen often sucks. Every car I’ve driven with touch interface requires too long of a press and/or doesn’t pick up the press. So you have to look away from driving to repeatedly mash a touch control. That’s not safe.
The touch area is often too small, such as arrow buttons to raise or lower volume, skip a song, or change temperature. Not only do they not register the touch, they’re too small. Double whammy for distraction.
Knobs are highly underrated for control interfaces. Gives users a fine degree of control to dial in as quickly or as slowly as they're comfortable. They're an old concept, but they can still benefit from contemporary tech. Have you ever used a Nest thermostat? The little blocks as you scroll through the settings, pushing the whole thing in like a button to select. It's weirdly satisfying and I want to control everything with a big knob now.
And they should bring back knobs and tactile functions for all white goods for people with disabilities or at least prepare and provide the model for exactly that. Touch screen was a terrible idea for washers, driers and dishwashers. This isn’t just an old person thought, it’s an inclusive thought.
Agree completely with the first 3, but my young person/introvert trait is that I think I should be able to get anything, including paying my bills, to work without having to talk to someone on the phone like I'm my boomer dad.
Unfortunately now it seems to be the worst of both worlds: companies don’t have a contact email, but only a phone number and sometimes a useless chat bot. When I finally work up the courage to use the phone, I have to go through a long automated menu system, and/or wait for half an hour.
Once I actually get a human on the phone it’s never as bad as my mind made it out to be -but I would still very much prefer an email.
Also in a lot of cases it's simply a waste of an employee's time to answer basic questions on the phone all day long. Robots should be able to do that better. But I do agree that customers should be trapped on hold for 30 minutes.
I think at least there should be at least a digital queue system so that you can just get an automated call back instead of having to wait for hours listening to the hold music.
I don't want to install an update and have the ui completely change on me because some dev wanted to pad out his resume by starting a new project on the fresh-framework-of-the-day.
Pointless UI changes are a fucking atrocity, cause they are always more complicated and more informational overload than the previous design, while being more resource intensive and slower.
KISS is a motto for a reason. Unfortunately its the stupid people that seem to make the decisions and don't register that they are the ones KISS is directed at.
I feel like this is a product of a lack of UX team or outsourcing it. When engineers are left to make a UI... they make what works (barely), not what is easy to use...
Right? I wait for everything to load and snap into place and then I touch my screen. SIKE! it's got one more button to put under my finger that instant.
Don't fall for framing of these type of things as a flaw in you. None of these are unreasonable ends for the young or the old. This is not about young/old, it's about wealthy/not wealthy - the greedy fucks making these decisions are trying to make you casually take a side in a generational conflict so that you turn your pitchforks away from them.
To what degree? I know how to plug inputs into my tv and turn it on, I have no idea how the TV actually works. I know how to flip a light switch, I don't understand how to wire a house.
You should know to the extent that you're using it, not the other way around. You should understand that the house is wired, and you don't know how to wire it, and that the light in that bulb is from fire, not wizard shit. Maybe also where to find books on how to wire a house.
Fair. I think to the extent of "if you use a web browser you have to know what HTTP is". Not really how it works, just being conscious of the technology in use.
Why don't you understand those things? Both are technologies that have existed for your entire life. You've never been curious how either of them work? I'm biased because I'm a naturally inquisitive person, but I can't imagine being surrounded by things I don't understand. You can learn about both of them in less than a single evening, and your life will be richer because of it.
This is such a big deal. The englebart paradigm of tech losing out to fucking Steve jobs put us on the bad timeline, maybe even more than Ronald Reagan.
I'm not sure you should have to fully understand, but tech that you use, and increase your agency by using abd knowing, rather than shit so simple it can use a child, is so fucking important.
Also, maybe we shouldn't let every shiny algorithm with a primary color on its front page use children?
These aren't "old person traits", these are you and I being socialized into believing that we don't deserve the basic functionality of products and services (because we need to squeeze out slight additional profit margin for the capitalists running/ruining these things).
It humorusly points out how things should be, and intentionally mis-attributes it to an "old person trait", to suggest that it wasn't always like this. You can read between the lines that the dark patterns are most likely motivated by greed.
My old person trait is holding up traffic by driving at 40 mph on winding country roads until I get behind a tractor and then pull over to let the cars behind me pass.
I can still bend down just fine to pick something up or tie my shoes. But these days I think if there's anything else I can do while I'm already down there.
Hell at this point Id be happy to talk to a human fir customer support at ALL. Amazon had me doing a whole ass detective hunt that eventually ended up in me having to download their app before I could talk to a human
My old person trait is I think video games should give away the first level of a game as shareware instead of taking preorders for a game we may never play.
For the complete and functional product tho... Idk
I'd prefer to pay for a product they slowly but surely upgrade through time than to gamble a lot of money on something that I don't know will be good or not
(Disclaimer: I was mainly thinking about video games)
See, this is part of why every game these days is always online and can't be played again once the next version comes out and the publisher pulls the plug
While I see and understand your point, I don't really approve it from a game dev point of view. (Disclaimer: not a game dev, only a software dev)
And this applies whether the game dev has a publisher or not. Wasting huge amounts of resources and time on a game that is not well received in the public, this is counter productive for the team behind it.
On the other side, getting small updates based on the input of the user base, that's a bit more productive.
I get your view, I myself experienced updateless video games, and these were the days. But these games were the product of a survival bias. There are many other game that were not making enough money to sustain the company's finances behind (and most importantly, the dev salaries) (see Infogrammes)
Now don't get me wrong, I am certainly not talking about the way they handle how the game belongs to someone and how versioning works. A game where you can download any version (see Minecraft) can coexist with the iterative and more productive methodology of maintaining and adding new features into the game through time and based on the users' input.
You will quickly find out if it's good. I won't spend any money on a company who can just pull my plug or nerf everyone who isn't paying the extra they want.
Companies are incentivized to not help you. It is cheaper to run a low head count foreign call center with long wait times, and it also means some folks will give up which is cheaper than actually fixing their problems.
Unusually high call volume is no longer unusual but the norm and it will only get worse unless it is legislated against.
Take real action. Anything that's got any possibility of fixing anything is going to get a propertarian gangster with some military surplus rolling up on your shit. If it doesn't, you're fucking cosplaying.
I read an article I’ve been trying to refine ever since, about how companies have bastardized the internet and every technological advancement to further insulate themselves from the customer. The the article stated that companies figured out how to use the internet backwards, but I’d argue that all of capitalism is built on this idea. Every “advancement” has benefitted companies at the expense of people. And technology is only used to increase profits while squeezing employees harder and giving customers less recourse.
I'm not advocating for long wait times, I'm just saying, 30 minutes is nothing compared to what some companies will do to you. Some people are on hold for hours, slowly going insane.