Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Support Brendan Eich: Use Brave
For all of you who, like me, stopped using Firefox because of the company’s shameful “woke” treatment of Brendan Eich, feel free to join me in using the Brave web browser. Mr. Eich is the founder/president of that company, and the browser is pretty fast. They are also partnered with search engine DuckDuckGo rather than Google, another plus.
Published in General
For me, the structure of the presentation of the functions and data must match the logical structure of the functions and data.
I understand why some of us prefer one way and one the other. There are two kind of thinkers, and there’s no way to satisfy both kinds of thinkers.
To explain, I will take the theoretical extreme of both types. No such extremes exist in real life–everyone is a blend of the two.
One uses concrete thinking to understand, organize, and store all of the world and to solve all problems. The other uses concrete thinking to understand some things and solve some problems, and for other things uses abstract logical thinking.
For an app to present data and functions logically is of no use at all to the first type of thinker: he doesn’t use logic, but familiarity to find things. The first time he uses a software tool and needs to find a piece of data or function, he stumbles through the concrete structure and memorizes it, the way a person in a strange land stumbles across hazards and useful places until he has the land memorized. His mind is optimized for this method of problem-solving: he is quick-thinking and has a good, quick-responding long-term memory. He finds nothing out of the ordinary or unpleasant about the tool having this concrete form. In his mind there is only one way to find things: his way.
The second type of thinker using a new software tool finds what he is looking for by logical analysis. His strength is that he can use any new, logically designed tool the first time, regardless of its concrete functions and data content. For example, his mind has a few simple, permanent logical functions he may have named “edit“, “search“, “create new“, “delete“, “navigate to next lower level“, “create new screen/window“, etc. No matter what the new tool is doing–computer-aided design, conversation, personal finance–he knows it provides these functions. If he wants to edit an object, he looks for a visible command “edit” (in the fixed part of the screen containing commands and nothing else), and he looks nowhere else.
But his mind is optimized only for finding things by thinking logically, and ordering the tool to do what he wants. If the presentation in the tool is irrational, he becomes frustrated. He doesn’t have a good, fast-responding long-term memory for concrete facts.
I just watched the first couple episodes on Netflix last night of a BBC sitcom called “The IT Crowd”. Two very stereotypical computer guys stuck in the basement of a corporate office. In the first episode, every time they answer the phone, it goes like this:
“Hello, IT. Have you tried turning it off and back on again”?
It’s very broad, badly acted British humor, but pretty funny so far.
Hmm, totally different from mine. Wonder what’s up.
I got a text result of unbiased articles, but when I went to image view, got mostly a racist/leftist-filtered set of black inventors.
The biased image results may not be so much the result of malice aforethought by DDG, but of an algorithm that rewards images that are popular with the public. For example, many searches are being made by students in public schools or universities (public or private) where they are all being programmed to look for only for woke-approved information by their woke teachers.
I think it only happens if you capitalize “Inventors.” It thinks you mean “Black inventors” . . .