3 ms·
You're thinking about it the wrong way. For example, one 'technological product' I cannot abide by, and for which I routinely consider reaching our for a sledg
by leg100 8y ago
You're thinking about it the wrong way.
For example, one 'technological product' I cannot abide by, and for which I routinely consider reaching our for a sledgehammer, is the automated supermarket check-out. Its intelligence and UX is abysmal. It's slow, unresponsive, pedantic, intolerant, and cannot rely on itself without continual help from a bored mind-numbed shop assistant.
What is missing is a technology that is fast, responsive, tolerant, intelligent and autonomous. You might ask well how would that be possible. That's the point. We or the people that build it, don't have the know-how or wherewithal to do so.
It is clear the technology we do have is not the best that we can possibly develop; and for many reasons, there is not an interest or desire to do so.
- themacguffinman 8y agoI'm not sure you're thinking about it the right way. The "inteligence and UX" of a technology isn't what makes it better, it's the overall efficiency. Automated supermarket checkout is winning because it costs much less resources while mostly achieving the same goal (the UX is bad enough to make people stop buying goods), making it more efficient. Just not more efficient for you specifically.
- leg100 8y agoI agree: it's better for the supermarket, it's not better for me. Like the luddites, I really couldn't give a toss it costs much less resources for them while achieving the same crude goal.