3 ms·

So your premise is: if the masses do not understand, then it's not useful. The masses determine whether something "sucks" or not. I suppose the very fact that

by wissler 14y ago

So your premise is: if the masses do not understand, then it's not useful. The masses determine whether something "sucks" or not. I suppose the very fact that the word "sucks" being used to describe it goes along with your mentality.

protomyth 14y ago
Got a bit of the nastiness going there with that interesting interpretation and the "your too young" stuff. If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed ("you suck") and need to redo or evolve your work. Computer most definitely were not magnificent every step of the way. When one of the great programs running on the Altair relied on its ability to interfere with radios near it, you can bet that it didn't impress the common man. Do some people still see the potential, yes, but that doesn't mean what's there is valuable in itself. It is clear that the product hasn't reached its potential if the users don't understand it. "Suck" is a perfectly valid term to explain ones dismay with something.
- wissler 14y ago
  "Got a bit of the nastiness going there" Ever seen Idiocracy? Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. "If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed" Your standards are idiotic. The phrase "your users" is hopelessly vague. Which users? G+ has millions. Should it pander to each and every one or only the most idiotic of users? What if by making it easier to understand for the lowest common denominator, it makes the intelligent users go away? Your idiotic standards don't address this. Call me nasty if you want; I am simply citing the facts.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I don't really see you citing any facts, just a lot of opinion. I guess saying G+ has millions of users is a fact with a rather large caveat. Google makes it very hard to avoid a G+ membership if you want to use other Google services. Elitism does not define greatness and simple does not mean idiotic. The iPod was successful because it was simple in usage, but it was not idiotic.
    - wissler 14y ago
      "I don't really see you citing any facts, just a lot of opinion." In your opinion. In my opinion, you're failing to address the argument I gave.
ahelwer 14y ago
Hey wissler, I've seen you around making inflammatory comments on here and other threads (stuff to do with piracy, etc.) Could you please be more civil? Thank you.
- wissler 14y ago
  My concept of "civil" might differ from yours. On my view, it's uncivilized to treat barbaric ideas and behavior as if they are civilized, because that only fosters barbarity. Many people are confused on this point. They think that you should be polite as an absolute (even while they claim that "there are no absolutes"), but usually they are hypocrites about it, because they become quite rude if you disagree with them about their "be polite all the time" zealotry, which reveals what is really behind their pretense at being polite.
  - ahelwer 14y ago
    I don't think anyone is confused about what you are trying to do. People such as, say, Linus Torvalds do this. This works for Linus Torvalds because he is Linus Torvalds. When it's some guy on the internet, it just comes across as hostile and unconstructive. Be better.
    - wissler 14y ago
      You don't mean it works for Linus Torvalds. You mean it works for you when Linus Torvalds does this. But you're just some guy on the Internet, so why should I care? Indeed, even if you were Linus Torvalds, why should I care, given the fact that you're flat out wrong?

by wissler 14y ago

protomyth 14y ago

Got a bit of the nastiness going there with that interesting interpretation and the "your too young" stuff. If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed ("you suck") and need to redo or evolve your work. Computer most definitely were not magnificent every step of the way. When one of the great programs running on the Altair relied on its ability to interfere with radios near it, you can bet that it didn't impress the common man. Do some people still see the potential, yes, but that doesn't mean what's there is valuable in itself. It is clear that the product hasn't reached its potential if the users don't understand it. "Suck" is a perfectly valid term to explain ones dismay with something.

wissler 14y ago
"Got a bit of the nastiness going there" Ever seen Idiocracy? Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. "If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed" Your standards are idiotic. The phrase "your users" is hopelessly vague. Which users? G+ has millions. Should it pander to each and every one or only the most idiotic of users? What if by making it easier to understand for the lowest common denominator, it makes the intelligent users go away? Your idiotic standards don't address this. Call me nasty if you want; I am simply citing the facts.
- protomyth 14y ago
  I don't really see you citing any facts, just a lot of opinion. I guess saying G+ has millions of users is a fact with a rather large caveat. Google makes it very hard to avoid a G+ membership if you want to use other Google services. Elitism does not define greatness and simple does not mean idiotic. The iPod was successful because it was simple in usage, but it was not idiotic.
  - wissler 14y ago
    "I don't really see you citing any facts, just a lot of opinion." In your opinion. In my opinion, you're failing to address the argument I gave.

ahelwer 14y ago

Hey wissler, I've seen you around making inflammatory comments on here and other threads (stuff to do with piracy, etc.) Could you please be more civil? Thank you.

wissler 14y ago
My concept of "civil" might differ from yours. On my view, it's uncivilized to treat barbaric ideas and behavior as if they are civilized, because that only fosters barbarity. Many people are confused on this point. They think that you should be polite as an absolute (even while they claim that "there are no absolutes"), but usually they are hypocrites about it, because they become quite rude if you disagree with them about their "be polite all the time" zealotry, which reveals what is really behind their pretense at being polite.
- ahelwer 14y ago
  I don't think anyone is confused about what you are trying to do. People such as, say, Linus Torvalds do this. This works for Linus Torvalds because he is Linus Torvalds. When it's some guy on the internet, it just comes across as hostile and unconstructive. Be better.
  - wissler 14y ago
    You don't mean it works for Linus Torvalds. You mean it works for you when Linus Torvalds does this. But you're just some guy on the Internet, so why should I care? Indeed, even if you were Linus Torvalds, why should I care, given the fact that you're flat out wrong?