Scott Forstall to Discuss Creation of iPhone at Computer History Museum Next Week

[Royal Gala]

No, I just pay attention to how average people function with technology more than the average tech person does, as well as agreeing with the decades of user interface research and study that backs up every complaint about iOS 7's redesign.

You say that you pay attention to how "average people function". However, there is no such thing as an average person or average people.*

Even if the concept of "average people" was logically sound, it wouldn't enhance the strength of your rebuttal. This is because of the wider point that you've moved away from the framing that you put forward in your original argument. The phrase that you used initially (which I quoted in my previous post) was "the entirety of all human beings using technology". 'All' is not an average, it is an aggregate.

As a side note, "the entirety of all human beings using technology" doesn't make any sense as a phrase. 'All' includes everything within a given sample (in this case, the sample is "human beings using technology"). Therefore, the qualifier "the entirety" serves no additional function, apart from reducing comprehensibilty.

* http://www.publicmedievalist.com/no-average-person/

 

[huperniketes]

There's a lot of arrogant remarks in this thread made as to the quality of the user experience of the various releases of iOS before and after Forstall's departure.

In actuality, no design will be perfect for everyone. But the most useful designs will be those which can be adapted by the user's preferences. Because every user has their preferred model of interacting with the world around them. And they're prone to completely change that model given any situation in which they find themselves.

 

[Sill]

No, there's no reason to go to that extent. I just didn't want to endorse one part of your post, despite wanting to endorse the rest. Simple as that.

Well, you could have actually said "I agree with everything you said except this", instead of "I would have agreed with everything until you said something that triggered me". Maybe even called the joke out as a single quote, and throw a rolleyes.jpg on it. If I can invoke Godwin, to refute a logical argument simply because you don't agree with a single joke is akin to saying the Autobahn isn't a valid form of transport because Hitler commissioned it. <- see?

Thank you for explaining your intent. The interpretation I made had to do with the way you referenced kale chips in the context of SJW persons. It came off as mockery to my eyes.

It was. I find satire is a good way to keep a discussion lively, as long as you don't descend into a one-sided bash. In this case I compressed a few different traits into a single sentence for humorous value. In another context, I might have mentioned neckbeards and fedoras, or rednecks and pickup trucks. The difference though is that rednecks will laugh at pickup jokes; they won't get "triggered" until you physically mess with their pickup truck.

Morally mandated? I don't like that word, "moral". Especially because of the way "morals" are mandated by the religious entities who've hijacked that word for themselves (much like how nationalists have hijacked the word "patriot" and its various forms).

You're off there. Morals have nothing to do with religion. Morality (right/wrong) is nothing more than a sliding scale of what society accepts at a given moment. In the Christian belief system (which is what I presume you're talking about, because I've never heard people in other religions discuss morals, at least not by that name), good and evil are external to what people call moral. Wait until a few years from now and I think you'll be shocked at what is considered moral.

I prefer to use the term "ethics" and its other forms. Ethics is when we say that all people should be treated equitably, without the exclusions or fantasy-driven specifics that religion throws into the pot when they proclaim "morality".

Yeah, I'd say you've got that a bit off, right there. Ethics is the study and application of moral philosophy, by any definition I've read, including the one right off the top in Wikipedia.

But to address your issue with Cook, I would ask exactly how he's using shareholder money when he's addressing things outside the purview of Apple business? A lot of the company's business is directly related to the issues he takes a public stance on. Employee safety and health out in the world leads to those employees doing better work at their jobs, for example.

I get your intent, but changing from a meritocracy to a diversity-based hiring and advancement system is a poor choice, as is his ramping up of Apple lobbying, and neither one leads to employees doing better work at their jobs. Sorry, but coming from decades of experience in a company that switched from meritocracy to diversity, I see the damage through and through.

I think Cook is in the wrong on at least one thing in this area: corporate responsibility to their home country. Apple does very little to actually change the status quo of American industry and he is on the wrong side with the tax loophole stuff. I think these are ethical and social issues.

Is he? I thought he wanted a repatriation discount. What CEO wouldn't? Or are you talking about Cork? In that case, he's head of a multinational. Its his obligation to move the money around in whatever way enables Apple to pay the least amount of taxes (page one of the IRS 1040 book, btw, last time I read it). I wish they could pay zero, but I doubt that will happen. If they could get a one-time break, say 10-15 percent extortion/protection fee instead of the enormous one hanging over them, they would be able to do tremendous things in America with that money.

 

[dysamoria]

You say that you pay attention to how "average people function". However, there is no such thing as an average person or average people.*

Even if the concept of "average people" was logically sound, it wouldn't enhance the strength of your rebuttal. This is because of the wider point that you've moved away from the framing that you put forward in your original argument. The phrase that you used initially (which I quoted in my previous post) was "the entirety of all human beings using technology". 'All' is not an average, it is an aggregate.

As a side note, "the entirety of all human beings using technology" doesn't make any sense as a phrase. 'All' includes everything within a given sample (in this case, the sample is "human beings using technology"). Therefore, the qualifier "the entirety" serves no additional function, apart from reducing comprehensibilty.

* http://www.publicmedievalist.com/no-average-person/

Wow, you're even more verbose and pedantic than myself. :-D

By "average" I meant only to refer to the computer users who are NOT tech people. Sometimes called "normal people", despite the fact that "normal" is almost entirely defined by what is majority, rather than any objective metric.
[doublepost=1498168281][/doublepost]

Well, you could have actually said "I agree with everything you said except this", instead of "I would have agreed with everything until you said something that triggered me". Maybe even called the joke out as a single quote, and throw a rolleyes.jpg on it. If I can invoke Godwin, to refute a logical argument simply because you don't agree with a single joke is akin to saying the Autobahn isn't a valid form of transport because Hitler commissioned it. <- see?

Possibly. I put too much effort into these posts as is, :-D

It was. I find satire is a good way to keep a discussion lively, as long as you don't descend into a one-sided bash. In this case I compressed a few different traits into a single sentence for humorous value. In another context, I might have mentioned neckbeards and fedoras, or rednecks and pickup trucks. The difference though is that rednecks will laugh at pickup jokes; they won't get "triggered" until you physically mess with their pickup truck.

I find satire quite valuable at times (especially in terms of pointing out the insanity of the status quo). However, I mostly find it is an obstruction to actual conversation.

You're off there. Morals have nothing to do with religion.

That's my point. Morals have nothing to do with religion. However, organized religion seems to want to mandate morality and seems to want people to believe that religion is the source of all morality (which it is absolutely not). Being an atheist, I've had quite enough of the atheist bingo square "how can you be a good person if you don't have god?" I've witnessed and been subject to bigotry, prejudice, oppression, etc from religious people over my state of being non-religious.

I don't want to use the word that organized religion has hijacked. I thought I had made that point clear. Apologies for not.

Wait until a few years from now and I think you'll be shocked at what is considered moral.

I will not be shocked or surprised, but I might have other emotional or intellectual responses.

Yeah, I'd say you've got that a bit off, right there. Ethics is the study and application of moral philosophy, by any definition I've read, including the one right off the top in Wikipedia.

Here's someone else describing the subtle difference I perceive between morals and ethics: http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/

I get your intent, but changing from a meritocracy to a diversity-based hiring and advancement system is a poor choice,

That's not the point of diversity hiring. While I know idiotic political gaming HR departments will turn it into that, the point isn't to value one person over another because of ONLY their majority/minority status. The mission of attending to diversity is to avoid minorities (of any kind) being blocked from hiring or advancement because of their minority status.

Sorry, but coming from decades of experience in a company that switched from meritocracy to diversity, I see the damage through and through.

I can't speak to that as I know nothing of your experience. Perhaps you had a lousy HR department. Frankly, I have yet to meet a good one. There's a clue in the name: employees are treated as assets to acquire or divest, not as people to have healthy relationships with.

Is he? I thought he wanted a repatriation discount. What CEO wouldn't? Or are you talking about Cork?

I don't know the name "Cork".

In that case, he's head of a multinational. Its his obligation to move the money around in whatever way enables Apple to pay the least amount of taxes (page one of the IRS 1040 book, btw, last time I read it). I wish they could pay zero, but I doubt that will happen. If they could get a one-time break, say 10-15 percent extortion/protection fee instead of the enormous one hanging over them, they would be able to do tremendous things in America with that money.

Extortion? Seriously? I don't see why any company should not pay their taxes. Taxation is not theft. It's a necessary part of a functioning civilization. It's how we pay for the things a society needs. Things that we are seeing crumbling around us because the plutocrats in power in our government don't see value in them (like infrastructure and education). Corporations are historically NOT investing that money back into the USA (one example is Verizon refusing to do the fiber rollout they promised in exchange for receiving tons of government money; instead that money was used to further their wireless goals, because wireless has lower investment requirements for greater profit). Corporations concentrate this wealth and disburse it to the fewest people as possible (people making 250 times the median income), who then use it to make even more money. Consolidation of wealth is not good for a society.

If you're in the libertarian part of the political realm, we are going to not agree on a lot of socioeconomic policy and it's best not to argue with each other too much because we won't convince each other of our positions ;-)

 

[Sill]

I find satire quite valuable at times (especially in terms of pointing out the insanity of the status quo). However, I mostly find it is an obstruction to actual conversation.

It can be. Then if I start to think that, I remember George Carlin.

That's my point. Morals have nothing to do with religion. However, organized religion seems to want to mandate morality and seems to want people to believe that religion is the source of all morality (which it is absolutely not). Being an atheist, I've had quite enough of the atheist bingo square "how can you be a good person if you don't have god?" I've witnessed and been subject to bigotry, prejudice, oppression, etc from religious people over my state of being non-religious.

Well, its a commonly stated axiom that more people have died in the name of religion than anything else. To that I"d like to add that in most of those cases the religion had the backing of the state. I am not a fan of organized religion, nor the state.

I don't want to use the word that organized religion has hijacked. I thought I had made that point clear. Apologies for not.

It was pretty unclear, but apology accepted.

That's not the point of diversity hiring. While I know idiotic political gaming HR departments will turn it into that, the point isn't to value one person over another because of ONLY their majority/minority status. The mission of attending to diversity is to avoid minorities (of any kind) being blocked from hiring or advancement because of their minority status.

If that were truly the case, I think that the best way to do it would be to have no place at all on the application form for listing the applicant's race. I've never quite understood how one can claim race-neutrality while requiring people to list their race.
I think the politicking of HR departments is only a sliver of the problem. The bigger problem is government agencies building their power by claiming they can fix race issues if they are given enough authority and funding. They do a great job of causing people to clump into categories for different things. Ultimately all they end up doing is turning half the country against the other half, whatever those halves are.

I can't speak to that as I know nothing of your experience. Perhaps you had a lousy HR department. Frankly, I have yet to meet a good one. There's a clue in the name: employees are treated as assets to acquire or divest, not as people to have healthy relationships with.

"Lousy HR department"? Aren't they all? I dislike the term HR just as you do. I like watching my staff squirm when I refer to HR as "personnel". For some reason that gets everyones' dander up. I remember when the term "HR" crept across the business landscape in the 1980s. It was supposed to be a term of "empowerment" (another buzzword I dislike intensely), designed to get "buy-in" (there we go again...) through repeating that vapid statement "employees are our greatest resource".

I don't know the name "Cork".

County Cork, Ireland. Apple's original base of operations in the isles. I didn't know if you were referring to Cook being on/off board with the possible Trump profit repatriation scheme, or if you were talking about Apple loading everything european up in Ireland to escape EU taxes.

Extortion? Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. How anyone should have a claim on anyone else's fruits of their labor is mind-boggling to me.

I don't see why any company should not pay their taxes.

Because besides the fact those taxes are not "theirs", the corporations get taxed multiple times. On top of that, all that cost is passed on to end customers, who are paying for products and services with after-tax money, generally.

Taxation is not theft. It's a necessary part of a functioning civilization. It's how we pay for the things a society needs. Things that we are seeing crumbling around us because the plutocrats in power in our government don't see value in them (like infrastructure and education).

Hmm, so we're paying taxes to get needed things... but the guys collecting the taxes are as bad as anyone else. Its just that instead of being a private enterprise that has to respond to market signals and constantly optimize or get driven out by smarter companies, we're dealing with a state that doesn't have to optimize because you are beholden to them no matter what.

Who gets to determine what is needed? Some bureaucrat in an office far away? His boss even farther away? A group of them in a city on the other side of the country? Unelected mouthpieces in a country outside one's own borders? Answer: the one who can cause half the population to fight the other half, and he can play both sides against each other. We're seeing it right now in this country.

If you don't relinquish your resources, they're taken from you. If you struggle to keep what's yours, they jail or kill you. How is that not theft?

Corporations are historically NOT investing that money back into the USA (one example is Verizon refusing to do the fiber rollout they promised in exchange for receiving tons of government money; instead that money was used to further their wireless goals, because wireless has lower investment requirements for greater profit). Corporations concentrate this wealth and disburse it to the fewest people as possible (people making 250 times the median income), who then use it to make even more money. Consolidation of wealth is not good for a society.

The money is theirs to do with as they please. They risked profits and equity, and provided a service people willingly signed up for. Wireless is the thing now, more so than fiber. Lower maintenance costs and higher ROI. When the shift back to the home occurs, as the IoT builds up, all those service providers will build more fiber. Right now, they're sensitive to shareholder criticism in what has become basically a commodity market.
However, if you're upset about the government money given to them, consider that all the major telcos and broadcast companies are the beneficiary of federal largesse in one way or another. Whether its outright cash handed to them, or sweetheart contracts thrown at them that have a very low ROI for the citizenry, or the regulations that keep smaller, nimbler players out of the game, all of this you can thank the government for. Next time you are concerned about corporate concentration think of how select enforcement of "antitrust" laws have actually led to more concentration than ever before. The boondoggles of the Standard Oil and AT&T breakups come to mind.

BTW, consider Pareto's Law of distribution, commonly called the 80/20 rule. This has been observed in everything from economics to astronomy, and it has held pretty well these past years. When wealth concentrates in excess of that rule, its dangerous, but also when wealth is too evenly distributed, it also can be dangerous, perhaps more so. Ponder on that one.

If you're in the libertarian part of the political realm, we are going to not agree on a lot of socioeconomic policy and it's best not to argue with each other too much because we won't convince each other of our positions ;-)

Sorry man, I dislike labels and avoid them at all costs. They lead to lazy thinking.