4 ms·
I bet OP understands that personal feelings are subjective. That website makes someone a whole bunch of money. That doesn't mean that website isn't awful.
by castis 9y ago
I bet OP understands that personal feelings are subjective.
That website makes someone a whole bunch of money. That doesn't mean that website isn't awful.
- dsacco 9y agoThe website's profitability doesn't assure that it isn't awful, no (pure capitalism is not a moral framework). But the consensus of a lot of people who choose to use it sort of does mean it isn't awful, if you're trying to ascribe some sort of objectivity to that adjective (and I don't agree you can). This is like bikeshedding the definitions of privacy, DRM, net neutrality, etc. Most people just don't give a shit, no matter how loud the minority is that demonizes things like throwing a newsletter subscription popup on a website.
- castis 9y agoThe philosophical pillar you're standing on doesn't stop me from saying that this website is subjectively awful.
- softawre 9y agoA website serves a purpose, to create income. If removing some of the modals would reduce their income, then having them is subjectively better than not. I think you need a new word to describe your (valid, in a way) opinion.
- castis 9y agoIf the only thing that mattered in this world was income then you might have had a point. Thinking others should change their opinion because you don't understand subjectivity is absurd.
- skummetmaelk 9y agoExactly. Like when people don't give a shit about audio quality and end up damaging their ears because of speakers with poor frequency responses. Most people would care if they knew the difference, they do not. It is up to those who know to tell them, to make a stance and denounce the shit.
- ethbro 9y ago> Most people would care if they knew the difference, Would they? > they do not. It is up to those who know to tell them, to make a stance and denounce the shit. Counterpoint: How do you differentiate people who have made a choice through inadvertent ignorance vs those who have made a different choice than you because they value different things? E.g. not caring if they harm their hearing, liking the frequency response of Bose over more neutral speakers, having other things they'd rather be doing than read audiophile forums, or rather save $500+ and use an inferior speaker
- skummetmaelk 9y ago> Not caring if they harm their hearing Usually people regret this later in life. I guess we fundamentally disagree on the ability of people to make good decisions that they won't regret later and whether or not we should help people avoid doing things they will surely regret. > or rather save $500+ and use an inferior speaker This is hyperbole, I'm talking about the difference between a $3 set of earbuds and $20. I'm not saying everyone should have the highest quality gear available.
- nether 9y agoHonestly I lump audiophiles, oenophiles, and creationists in the same bucket of magical thinkers.
- skummetmaelk 9y agoThere's a difference between believing that only copper from a specific mine in Poland is a must have for your audio quality, and not using speakers damaging to your hearing.
- grillwork 9y agoi assure you that audio quality is clearly determinable.. even at the most basic form. Listening to an analog vinyl vs a digital CD is night and day.. the flat tinny sound of digital audio is shite.
- tyingq 9y ago>That website makes someone a whole bunch of money $125k/month in gross booked travel may not be a whole bunch of money. Typically, only portions of the travel have commissions, and not huge percentages either. It could grow of course.