Yep. If (for various reasons) your password manager isn't able to help you enter those random character strings, you'll be hating life. Especially on a mobile device. It has to be somewhat practical or people understandably won't do it. If it's not practical and they do do it, it can create an entirely new problem that's almost as bad as getting hacked: Losing access to your own stuff.
I prefer these rules of thumb, after you identify which services "matter" (have sensitive info or can be used to access other services):
Even these rules of thumb are too much for most technophobes. For some people this might be best:
I'll readily agree that he worded it poorly and I disagree with much of the premise, but... Is the punishment in line with the offense here? He spoke his mind out, something Americans seem all too eager to do and say they have a right to, and then the backlash was not only severe, but persisted for years down the line and probably will for years further. That's a bit much, don't you think? That you can essentially destroy your life in a single act, one that is neither immoral nor illegal?
Not much empathy going around eh? I'm always trying to catch myself before grabbing a pitchfork, because I fear one day I may do something stupid and end up on the wrong end of them. Internet justice can be an awful and uncontrollable thing.
Here I risk going off topic. Degree of malice is not always an accurate predictor of outcome or punishment. Either of the two can fly off the charts with little predictability or justification. A bus driver has a mellow job in most cases, until one of their little errors has big consequences and people die. Recall one of your own fender benders or near misses, then imagine the same thing happening while driving a bus, and you'll probably see that you might not have fared any better. And it's not like we compensate bus drivers for the risk of failure we are heaping upon them.
So don't be too quick to judge. And respect those whose jobs have a high degree of personal risk, not just to life and limb but also to reputation.
The only part of the movies where I thought they captured that was in the opening scenes of the first Hobbit, where the dwarves come in one at a time, and then start singing while they clean the kitchen. So lighthearted and fun.
Yep, that scene was pretty well done.
To me, The Hobbit's flaws were just a magnification of flaws that already existed in the LOTR movies:
- Everything looked fake
- The pacing was always off. Either rushing through moments that should be awe inspiring, or dragging out moments that either shouldn't exist (because PJ invented them), or were boring filler (eternal battle scenes, interpersonal relationship drama).
- Trying to make everything epic. What ruined the soundtrack in LOTR (and The Hobbit), for me, was the fact that it never shut up. Not every scene requires grand accompaniment.
There was never a focus on doing these movies right. It was always about doing them big.
Agile: A form of development co-opted by management and companies to micro manage you at every possibility, without actually establishing any direction. Yes, I know this is not how it is supposed to work, but after being in many companies doing it, it is all too often done this way. Everyone gets creative about 'what they did yesterday', and 'what they will do today', yet we still don't have a clear direction on 'what the heck we are doing'. That gets frustrating.
I'm with you on every point except your agile comments. Yes many companies get it very wrong, but many companies get waterfall just as wrong. For me, coming from a massively waterfall environment to an agile environment has dropped my stress level considerably. Here is how agile (Scrum, specifically) is supposed to benefit you:
If you have been using Scrum, it sounds to me like your group is in desperate need of retraining. You need an effective Scrum Master, an effective Product Owner, and team members who understand Scrum.
Both genders should have the same opportunities. They don't necessarily have the same interests.
However misguided, I think people are just trying to reduce the pressure everyone puts on young girls to pick interests that fit into their stereotype. It's a goal you can only chip away at. There's no way to quickly rewire all of our cultural tendencies. Maybe girl-focused STEM toys are a bad idea, maybe not. You could argue that they bridge the gap between what we traditionally pressure girls to play with and what we traditionally pressure boys to play with. Maybe that's progress.
What we really need is an evil mad scientist to use robots to raise human babies in isolation, and observe which toys / roles they gravitate toward over the years.
The problem is, it seems companies are letting designers do the job of the UI experts.
"UI expert", "designer", "UX"... it's all the same. There are people who are in charge of the interface. Call them whatever you want. People in these comments are inventing a boogeyman and attempting to give him a name.
In answer to a few of the concerns brought up in these comments:
Let people try new ideas. Don't be such negative Nancy know-it-alls.
"I'd love to just be normal, and not have to think so much about everything."
You know, it might not help that you're a truck driver and probably have waaaaaay more time to think than the average Joe.
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.