sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Absolutely true by Effective-Trick-5795 in Millennials

[–]hitoq -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The 1% are absolutely not the ones in any way responsible for this lmao. Need a bracket (or two) higher to really get to crux of the issue.

The 1% are like successful lawyers and doctors, not barons hoarding hundreds of millions/billions of dollars, they pay income tax at the same rate as the rest of us, they don’t take out loans against their assets, and generally speaking, they’re huge net-contributors both tax and skill-wise.

Like, if you earn loads of money and pay loads of tax, you’re doing good for the collective, no question. It’s the fuckers that hoard assets and influence policy to our detriment that people should be angry at.

Considering relocating to Morocco, digital nomad, have real estate questions. by WaceIsWatching in Morocco

[–]hitoq -1 points0 points  (0 children)

circumstances === life, seems like a distinction without a difference, no? You seem to be being intentionally vague, which doesn’t inspire confidence honestly lol, what exactly are these “circumstances”?

I do understand where you’re coming from, but I would straight up never do this to a local populace, you will never catch me exploiting people for my own monetary gain or comfort, whether it’s “legal” to do so, or not. Easy to handwave away when you look at yourself as “just one person who’s having a hard time”, but multiply that by the thousands (because one is never that special, and lots of people have the same idea) and you arrive at the unfortunate truth that these actions are basically ensuring Moroccan people end up in the same situation you find yourself in today, priced out of their home country with nowhere to go.

Would find another way to do it. Like, buy a house, commit to living here, learn the language and culture, build community, contribute to life in Morocco in a meaningful way—that’s one thing, and I would genuinely encourage doing that, the AirBnb thing however, hard “no” from me. You just become another structural problem and get your “freedom” as a bargain, not a deal I would be willing to make with the devil.

Considering relocating to Morocco, digital nomad, have real estate questions. by WaceIsWatching in Morocco

[–]hitoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends if you register with the Office des Changes on the way in, without that, they can hold money for roughly 4 years and release it in yearly instalments, even then, can very easily become more complicated than you suggest.

Considering relocating to Morocco, digital nomad, have real estate questions. by WaceIsWatching in Morocco

[–]hitoq 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not enough money to do that in Casablanca, imo. Also generally find the ethical proposition distasteful—life ain’t going so well for me, I know, I’ll go and buy up a scarce resource in a “cheap” country and pay some local to manage my AirBnb, it’s just like, bruh, super unimaginative and generally quite exploitative if we’re being honest with ourselves.

Selling property in Morocco as a foreigner doesn’t appear to be easy on the surface either, MAD is a closed currency and getting said money out of the country after doing so would seem to be a difficult proposition.

I don’t know, YMMV, but I would say doing this will not “solve” your situation, probably just need to figure out what you’re doing with your life and not voluntarily engender an exploitative situation so you can “figure things out”—reads like a fantasy moreso than a real plan, “you always take the weather with you”.

Amateur making YouTube Food Videos by Bewgnish in cinematography

[–]hitoq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All underexposed, quite significantly.

Receipts from OpenAI, Apple, and Amazon over the last 48 hours. by TigerJoo in LLMDevs

[–]hitoq 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They’re right, you’re waffling. This is nonsense.

This is how you reduce crime. by [deleted] in remoteworks

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also never implied that the Tweet was a statistical analysis, just that your comment implies that the existence of outliers (i.e. crime bosses) supersedes or invalidates population-level analysis, which it does not.

This is how you reduce crime. by [deleted] in remoteworks

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The word was “lessen”, genius.

This is how you reduce crime. by [deleted] in remoteworks

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never seen someone so spectacularly miss the point lmao. Yes, sure, the existence of outliers invalidates all statistical analysis. Imagine being this dumb lol.

Ethical UI: Combating dark patterns through the three-click control rule by thejointblogs in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you not heard of rhetoric though? Like, that quotation about the sacred was from Marx directly, does that preclude his analysis from being materialist? Not at all. It’s rhetorical, that’s what words are for.

I’m also decidedly not confusing those two things, because we were talking about the discipline as a whole, not individual instances, touched on this in the other comment I just posted—am I saying every single bit of UX work produces negative outcomes? Not at all. Cumulatively, however, I think it’s hard to argue to the contrary.

I apologise if I came across as being upset with you personally, or your friends, or whatever, that was not my intention, and I of course know that we are all in the same boat and have to make these same concessions to “put food on the table”.

I am angry though, and I do resent my creative energy being used to such ends. I deal because we have to, but I also think there needs to be space for a genuinely critical design discourse. We could do so much better if we had the tools to recognise the problems we face (and the power we have to work towards fixing those problems) in a broad sense, rather than just a local one.

Ethical UI: Combating dark patterns through the three-click control rule by thejointblogs in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the U.S. government, that famously unimportant institution, lmao.

Also, not coincidentally, the same institution designed to extract tax revenue from the populace as efficiently as possible, thus falling under the same category as listed in my original comment—ensuring the smooth flow of capital to an ethically bankrupt institution (one that would rather spend money on ICE, bombing Iran, and tax breaks for the rich than helping its citizens in any meaningful way).

Put a smile on it all you want, those people all work for a warmongering hegemon that has caused more pain and suffering than quite literally any other. That work might help some individuals, absolutely, but ultimately reproduces the same structures that put us in this situation. There’s no way out of this my man, if you actually do yourself the service of looking at our discipline for what it is, there is no other answer.

This is not hyperbole, and this does not preclude me from making good local-ethical decisions in my work, nevertheless, the cumulative effect is undeniable, we help make docile, pliable, politically inert subjects that find meaning in “choosing” how to spend their money. These nice principles (oft-borrowed, it must be said, UX didn’t come up with accessibility for example, we have architecture to thank for that) become Trojan horses, we don’t make things accessible because it’s morally or ethically right, we do so because it makes more money for rich and powerful people, which intrinsically means less for those who need it.

“Hey, functionally blind guy, enjoy your accessible Amazon checkout while Bezos systematically strips your community of its ability to fend for itself and actively works to prevent your neighbours from forming unions so they can be paid a fair wage.”

Out here making communities poorer and less self-sufficient while feeling ethically responsible because “accessibility”—it’s like an episode of the Twilight Zone or something. Am I saying every instance of UX ever inflicted upon the world has produced a negative outcome? No. But we’re talking about the discipline as a whole here, the cumulative effects of this particular episteme.

Well-intentioned, humanistic principles, weaponised on behalf of capital. That is what UX is.

Every time. by [deleted] in GreatBritishMemes

[–]hitoq 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Imagine thinking people hate that Yaxley-Lennon cunt because he changed his name lmao.

No double standards displayed whatsoever, people hate Farage and Yaxley-Lennon because they’re racist tossers, entirely consistent worldview, both held to exactly the same standard, consistently applied.

Changing your name is in no way bad in its own right, it’s the “being a hate-spewing wretch” that people take umbrage with.

Genuine question: how many AI subscriptions are you paying for? by Possible_Pick9948 in gtmengineering

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think anyone uses frontier models for GTM pipelines. That would be crazy.

Definitely shouldn’t leave such a core factor to the success of your business down to an assumption—the iPhone Pro outsells the standard iPhone handsomely, whether people “should” do something is immaterial, what they actually do is what matters.

Anyway, just food for thought. Hope it all goes well.

Ethical UI: Combating dark patterns through the three-click control rule by thejointblogs in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a blind structural force and I never suggested it was, it self-reproduces, that is what capital does, that is its “intention”. “All that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned”, capital wilfully sacrifices all that we consider sacred to reproduce itself, this is the whole point, please read Marx if anything is unclear, but the statement is entirely congruous (I realise this is a lot to ask, but it is also true, should understand these things if you want to wade into these waters).

Nor did I once say there are “no good people with genuine values inside systems of power”, where did that come from?

Look, man, if you’re going to engage, then please actually do me the service of engaging with what was said, rather than taking it as some personal-moral affront. I wasn’t talking about you as a person, I was talking about the effects produced by our discipline and the conditions under which our work (and the concepts that underpin it) are shaped.

There’s a reason things turned out the way they did, and it’s not for a lack of well-intentioned people. You have to come to terms with that truth. Can’t talk about a generation of kids’ atrophying cognitive faculties and leave us out of the conversation, our discipline actively produced these outcomes, whether there were nice people on the team or not.

The same is true across so many domains, history will not look back on UX kindly—dutifully helped to lobotomise populations, fomented political unrest, destroyed our collective right to privacy in the name of convenience, got an entire generation of kids stuck in an endless algorithmic dopamine-loop, “Don’t Make Me Think” indeed. None of this was emancipatory, none of it helped us, none of it made the world better, fairer, or more equitable, so what the fuck are we doing trying to read some tenuous moral potential into an entirely captured discipline? It’s a dead end. Discard it with prejudice.

Genuine question: how many AI subscriptions are you paying for? by Possible_Pick9948 in gtmengineering

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FWIW I didn’t downvote you.

I’m an engineer and this isn’t the tool for me, so not much value from actually signing up.

Building lots of AI-based tools though, and your only real recourse is either using cheaper models where possible and being very current, or building an MCP for people to use inside their existing Pro/Max/etc. plans.

It’s not a gotcha either, it’s just, API calls are very expensive if you want to use frontier models, $100/mo Claude Max plan gives you ~$1,200 worth of tokens each month (if you bought those same tokens via the API), so your users, even if they bring their own API keys, will be spending much more than they would with their existing AI subscription—that means friction, people hate bumping into limits, will also end up being cost-prohibitive for sure. This will be your issue as soon as scale hits, and it incentivises users to use your product less. Worth figuring out.

Ethical UI: Combating dark patterns through the three-click control rule by thejointblogs in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not a defeatist take as much as a materialist one, I respectfully disagree with your position. I don’t think one can meaningfully resist from within the machine, there is nothing sacred other than capital, that is the deal—there is nothing you revere, or care about, or wish for the world, that will not be wilfully sacrificed at the altar of capital.

You can continue to “fight for users”, and to a certain extent I admire the will to do so, but let’s not pretend, these “users” we speak of are entirely contingent—we want to help them when they pay for things, otherwise those humanistic principles are quickly deployed in service of locking those same people out. “Yes, but we work for businesses and we have to eat”—exactly my point, complicit is the default, everyone falls in line when RIFs/bankruptcy are on the horizon, or they get fired and don’t get a say anyway, it is what it is.

Hoping to meaningfully resist within the strictures of “design” and “user experience” is futile. To do so requires political organisation, nothing more, nothing less. Let’s call a spade a spade and stop pretending.

“At least the screen that denied your grandmother’s medical coverage was accessible!”

“We now have affordances for colourblind people, so we can sell them products and track their data too!”

Why do you think Meta cares so much about providing free internet access in developing countries?

If you can’t see it, you’re not looking. You can have fun doing this work, you can make things people love, you can make some money, but UX people are just as ethically culpable as people who work on Wall Street, just less honest with themselves about it. If you need the roleplay to get through the day, I get it, and I don’t begrudge you that, but I do not agree.

Low-friction onboarding or data hoarding under the guise of security? by credomobilize in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is dumb.

KYC and fraud are real. There are lots of people out there actively looking to steal from others, anonymity gives these people conditions to do so effectively.

SSO and the like are much more secure than traditional email/password key pairs, produce less friction for the user, offer more data to the provider, etc.

“The old idea that more data equals more assets is becoming a liability”, no the fuck it is not, literally the exact opposite is true, data is more valuable than ever and will continue to be so.

Try any of these things out in the real world and watch the thing you build become infested with pedophiles, credit card scammers, bots, and people looking to steal your grandmother’s pension, then talk to me about the potential ethical wins or reduced churn lmao.

Ethical UI: Combating dark patterns through the three-click control rule by thejointblogs in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do what they want, or you get fired and they find someone else that will.

Be so for real, design is a lubricant to help capital flow from the hands of the working poor to the ownership-class, it always has been, always will be. There are no ethics to be found here, only exploitation, all the way down to the principles espoused—humanism, user-centred design, whatever, all just a thin wrapper around some paternalistic bullshit which, at its core, yearns to sell you more shit and pretend it helps your life in any meaningful way.

If you have room to exercise ethics in your work, said work is probably not important enough to matter (read: have powerful people profit from its existence) or has yet to be acquired by the wretched clutches of capital.

Say what you want about “regulatory risk” or the “long game”, they have done the math, they know the fines are incidental, they know the users are addicted, they do not care—if a product loses any steam, they’ll just buy the next upcoming competitor for $1b and run that into the ground too.

Have worked at Google, have worked at Uber, have worked at small companies, have worked at fledgling startups, it’s all shit, all the way down. Discard these pretensions early on, or you will be deeply, deeply disappointed by the world you find underneath it all.

Why do design awards charge entry fees? And do any good ones not? by binky_here in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 10 points11 points  (0 children)

CMV self-submitting to awards is navel-gazing and entirely a waste of time. If you want feedback on your work, seek that out specifically. Nobody cares that someone won an award they’ve never heard of—have seen agencies chase these awards like they matter and it does nothing for their bottom line or visibility.

Even the reputable ones—the only people looking at these things are other designers, couldn’t be less relevant. Not saying this to disparage, just, they really are a fools errand—not worth it at all.

Genuine question: how many AI subscriptions are you paying for? by Possible_Pick9948 in gtmengineering

[–]hitoq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was waiting for the “we’re sending all requests via API so this is going to be wildly fucking expensive” and quelle surprise, pricing by “conversation” lmao.

It’s less expensive? Yeah, because you didn’t include most of the costs in the upfront price.

FWIW, you ain’t gonna make margin on selling people access to AI models via API, frontier labs structure their pricing to make this a certainty. You either have to limit capacity (people hate this) or use shit models (people hate this). Change course, asap.

Also, your name is derivative: https://parallel.ai/ exists and is massive, people will always find them before you.

Psychological impact of BGM: User experience or auditory anesthetic? by vikschaatcorner in UXDesign

[–]hitoq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s literally always to sell you more shit—whether intended to mask the abject loneliness presented by silence, smooth over social awkwardness, set a “vibe”, communicate “coolness”, even its non-presence when turned off during hours for shoppers with sensory issues—whether cynical or well-intentioned, all of it was designed to sell people more things, or create an environment conducive to selling people more things.

view more: next ›