8 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. One famous example of reducing friction was the invention of infinite scroll [e31]. When trying to view results from a search, or look through social media posts, you could only view a few at a time, and to see more you had to press a button to see the next “page” of results. This is how both Google search and Amazon search work at the time this is written. In 2006, Aza Raskin [e32] invented infinite scroll, where you can scroll to the bottom of the current results, and new results will get automatically filled in below. Most social media sites now use this, so you can then scroll forever and never hit an obstacle or friction as you endlessly look at social media posts. Aza Raskin regrets [e33] what infinite scroll has done to make it harder for users to break away from looking at social media sites.

      I think the progress toward less friction has been good in the sense less of our time is wasted, but also paradoxically more time is wasted. With Appled ID and infinite scroll, becoming addicted to social media, and the more immediate the sense of dopamine, has increased the level of Pavlov conditioning.

    1. Japanese image-sharing bulletin board called Futaba or 2chan [e19].

      I wonder how this company might seek legal recourse for this action. Does Japanese law have a provision for stealing code? does the U.S?

  2. Jan 2026
    1. This process is sometimes referred to by philosophers as ‘utility calculus’. When I am trying to calculate the expected net utility gain from a projected set of actions, I am engaging in ‘utility calculus’ (or, in normal words, utility calculations)

      It may be also important to know the expected utility, if surveyed for potential affected persons, their responses may not be the truth. A person will never know what a punch feels like until it hits them. Building off of simplification of of data, what one person feels may not be what another ends up feeling. Thus, net utility is never one hundred percent certain.

    1. In this example, I decided that each of these would count as “1 apple.”

      Its always important to remember, when looking at data, it isn't always objective. Data is made up of what the creator choose to include. Data can be missing important distinctions (like small or big apples), information (an apple is just outside the picture frame, or can be intentionally omitted. It is always useful to look at the parameters of a study

    1. Or a computer program can repeat an action until a condition is met:

      This reminds me of when youtubers post videos of followers doing "day x until y" messages. I never considered the possibility that it was fake until now. If you combine this with the sleep feature and randomize the timeframe of the post, it could look very real. I also wonder if in the near future this could be done with AI to create automated videos.

    1. ethically justifiable

      To me I find it problematic in practice for there to be a distinction between ethical and non-ethical use of antagonistic bots. Everybody has their own worldview and values. To define some of these values as ethical on social media is to impose them on everyone. Maybe this would be okay if there was a democratic way for this. But there isn't. These bots are made to "get a rise out of people" or stir emotions. Subjecting people to that through automated bots under the guise of ethics I disagree with

    1. a human programmer will act as a translator to translate that task into a programming language.

      Its alien to me how logic gates somehow translate to english words. It must take a lot of ones and zeros to make that happen.

    1. Being and

      I think the core idea of Confucianism, that those in power have a duty over those they have power over, is really important in today's age. Social media companies are afforded extreme power and to be cliche "with great power comes great responsibility.