4 ms·
I agree, but being mildly offensive is kind of the point: makes it more memorable, and clearly differentiated from “popup” which is too broad and has many valid
by bgun 4mo ago
I agree, but being mildly offensive is kind of the point: makes it more memorable, and clearly differentiated from “popup” which is too broad and has many valid uses in an interface. Dickovers never have a valid reason to exist.
- rvz 4mo ago> makes it more memorable, and clearly differentiated from “popup” which is too broad and has many valid uses in an interface. Dickovers never have a valid reason to exist. This is hardly convincing. The author even describes it as a "popup" or a "popover" which is already descriptive enough without further explanation. It is just an "unwanted popup" or "unwanted popover". The fact he brought up a definition of that word after mentioning "popover", just made the need for "d*ckover" uneccessarily redundant. It may work with 30 people in tech, but will not work on TV. "unwanted popup" or "unwanted popover" is better to say on TV than "d*ckover".
- jimbokun 4mo agoUnless it’s on cable.
- bookofjoe 4mo agosee also: enshitification https://feld.com/archives/2025/11/enshitification/ https://feld.com/archives/2025/11/enshitification/