When comparing two interfaces and one allows a larger amount of user error that interface is inferior.
The point is roundabouts require more work to navigate correctly than a four way intersection with traffic lights. Thus drivers are more likely to navigate incorrectly.
> When comparing two interfaces and one allows a larger amount of user error that interface is inferior.
Seeing a safety issue and ignoring all other considerations is an excellent example of the ‘overarching theory and imposed order’ I argued that Britain rejects in my first comment.
Not gonna lie, I know about the flashing ambers of the pelican crossing, but they are uncommon enough, whenever I see one, I spend several seconds wondering what is happening, until it clicks it's one of these crossings.
The history leans to the left is the core underpinning of communist parties everywhere, hence the coopting of the term progressive and progress.
The role of the communist party wherever it resides is to accelerate the historical forces to the proletariat utopia they believe lies at the end of history.
This is of course ridiculous, there is no end state of history, other than everyone died.
And of course the author confuses liberalism with the left as many in the Anglosphere do, mostly because they have lived in places where the "left" party is usually some sort of social democrats at their most extreme.
It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
My statement was neutral, you shouldn't buy from people who hate you.
They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi.
I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have.
Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
But you yourself said Nike's decisions were driven by "greed, not malice".
Wtf is non-malicious hate?
If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical.
Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political.
> you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction
You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them.
You're right that greed isn't hate. I said as much, the motive was money, not malice.
But motive and content aren't the same thing. A company can platform contempt cynically, for cash, and it's still contempt. "Don't buy from people who hate you" was never a claim that Nike feels anything. It's about what they chose to sell, and who it's aimed at.
And it's the content that I object to, greed is mercurial, but those campaigns openly denigrate men to elevate women.
Do that to women, or gay people, or Muslims, and "it's just marketing, they don't really hate you" wouldn't fly, not for a second (in fact, it didn't in Nikes own history- the Boston Marathon "walkers tolerated" campaign was not well recieved). Nobody would tell the target of that derision to get over it then.
For some reason, I don't get that latitude, apparently; because it's men. I'm not really comfortable with the double standard, and it's the whole of my point to you now.
> The adverts openly denigrate men in order to try to bring up women.
I haven't seen 'em, no idea. The only "woke ad" on that article ("The Land of New Football") was boring and cringe. But I didn't see any denigration of people based on immutable characteristics.
> This is prejudice, and implying that I'm not permitted to feel offended by it
You straight up called me prejudiced. I'm a sports-loving, hetero guy too bro. I already told you you're free to be offended at whatever you like.
The price of any individual stock though is mostly determined by hype. Revenue and concrete performance plays a part but hype is very much a driving factor and hype is fickle.
Well tbh, hype does tell you something about future demand. It doesn't guarantee sales, but how excited people are about a product gives you an idea of how likely they are to buy it.
I think Nike lost some of its cool while the competition got better. For me, the turning point was walking into a Nike store and thinking their prices were way too high for what I was actually getting.
I reckon they'd be in a much worse position without Jordan. It's still a massive part of their appeal, even if its sales have slowed too.
And the stock market doesn't just look at today's revenue and performance. It also prices in what people expect to happen next. If people think a brand is losing its appeal, they won't necessarily wait for that to fully show up in the numbers.
This is the naive short term way to think of a stock price. I assure you fund managers, hedge funds etc do not. And I'm sure you can reply with an anecdote, but that doesn't prove the rule of 'any stock'.
I went to one of Nike's flagship store in a major global city in a major retail street a few years ago. It was like a nightclub with very few shoes on a couple of walls and a couple on a pedestal. It was impossible to actually shop there. It was more akin to a branding showcase than an actual store.
I saw this too. It felt like where corporate would showcase their shoes to a potential corporate merger or acquisition. Real shoe stores have huge inventory across dozens of specific shoes.
There is a retail shopping mall here; it is not an outlet mall, but a Nike Store opened up and it feels like an outlet. It was bustling with a lot of people milling around. There were bags available at the front, which I thought were durable totes for sale, but turned out that they were shopping bags to hold your pre-purchase items?
There were rows and rows of shoes to try, and a salesman was helping me for a while, but after trying 3 pairs I just got the feeling that the store was a dumping ground for the odd styles and odd sizes, and having figured out which size fit me, I left all the shoes there, and only purchased a lanyard, which was at least $25.
One point worth noting, as far as I can tell all the current research focuses on the surface. We simply don't know if there is water deeper than a few centimeters or feet under the surface.
Multiple missions that should be landing in the near future are looking just into that, in the south polar regions (Shackelton crater & co). So we should hopefully have some new data on this quite soon. :)
reply