4 ms·
> should we really worry about the 0.01% outlier 1. Yes, this is sometimes known as discrimination. 2. Yes, you have no way of knowing the size of the market
by ronaldx 13y ago
> should we really worry about the 0.01% outlier
1. Yes, this is sometimes known as discrimination.
2. Yes, you have no way of knowing the size of the market if you are excluding them - this may be disguising a group that's significantly larger than 0.01%.
3. Yes, if you cater to these people when your competitors cannot/do not, you have a captive market.
4. Yes, everyone is 0.01% in some fashion - if you continue to apply this reasoning, you will eventually exclude everyone other than yourself.
- grannyg00se 13y ago1. We discriminate all the time when building systems with finite resources and there's nothing wrong with setting reasonable limitations. Just because you use a politically sensitive word doesn't automatically make it wrong. 2. If you want to argue for an arbitrary budget increase to satisfy an unknown market size that may be larger than 0.01% whose requirements are drastically different than the others - go for it. I'm not going to do that. 3. Congratulations, you win the possibly larger than 0.01% market that I ignored. In the meantime I've iterated on several other useful bits that the vast majority of users care about. 4. The number of input fields in my dataset isn't infinite.
- Dylan16807 13y agoYou will eventually annoy everyone, not exclude them. And bureaucracy always ends up annoying people. Obviously you want to aim to be flexible, but I don't think there should be an obligation, for example, to support characters that aren't in unicode.