Not so much software as an element that needs to be part of so much software but, for some unfathomable reason, is not:
Picklists which work properly. If I type “U”, do not give me a screen full of Ts with the first U at the bottom. And let me type more than one letter to get to exactly where I need to be in the list. It can be done but it rarely is done and it does my head in.
Also, if you must include a scroll wheel to enter numbers, make it possible to just fucking type the numbers instead.
This is probably not what you intended this thread for but I’ll take any chance I get to ask UI designers to get a fucking grip…
Trans women who are using gender-affirming hormones are not “biologically male”. It takes about two years on hormones for their performance to equalise with cis women. The only advantage that remains is greater speed, due to the greater height gained from undergoing a male puberty. There are plenty of tall cis women, especially in sport, so this doesn’t really count as an unfair advantage. And, of course, trans kids who were lucky enough to get puberty blockers in time will fall in the same height range as their chosen gender.
I’m not going to pretend that it’s an easy question. It isn’t, and it’s not unreasonable for cis women athletes to be concerned. But the proportion of athletes who are trans is tiny and the proportion who are champions in their sport is even tinier. I do think that hormonal transition is a pre-requisite (because otherwise they would be “biologically male” with respect to the physical characteristics which matter in sport) but I don’t think anyone should be getting their knickers in a twist beyond that, and they should definitely not be using it as an opportunity to be cruel.
Most of the ‘discourse’ is pure transmisogyny, based on lies and fantasy demons. Most top professional athletes are biologically extraordinary, that’s why they are at the top.
Software developers who never have, and never will have to, use the software for real. I think every coder should be forced to use their own software for one month out of every year they work on it (and be able to do the job that goes with it because how the fuck else are they going to get a clue?).
And fucking stop making PC software that looks like it was designed to be used on a phone. I cannot do my job on a phone, no one would ever do my job on a phone, everyone who does my job has at least two large screens. We do not want to click a million times to do one simple task, and we do want to be able to see masses of information at the same time.
The can is used to preserve it and prevent the processes that would otherwise make it better.
Canned soup - which is a bunch of ingredients sealed in a tin then heated to cook and pasteurise it - is never going to taste as good as fresh ingredients that only need to stay edible for a few days, not a few years.
There is a little bit of wiggle-room because “double-blind” isn’t fully defined.
It usually means neither the clinician nor the patient know what is being given. But sometimes that is impossible (eg if the comparison is of two types of surgery) so the assessor may be blinded instead. It is also possible to blind the statistician and authors (so they analyse/write up without knowing which treatment is which).
We’ve never got around to making the labels more exact, we just state who is and is not blinded. “Double-blind” and “triple-blind” are often used when two or three parties are blinded but neither term defines exactly who is blinded.
If you do use one what other blocking do you use to circumvent data collection, YouTube and reddit front ends and things alike?
Firefox on maximum security will get rid of all cookies when you close the window (ie exit from Firefox, not just close the tab). If there are sites that require cookies, you can use Firefox containers to stop it collecting data across other sites).
I do use adblockers but there are sites which deserve the revenue (and don’t bombard you with shite) so I try to remember to whitelist them. But I’m not as diligent about this as I should be. Someone does have to pay for it and we don’t have a decent system to do that without advertising (yet). I can’t subscribe to the eleventy million sites I visit so advertising is a necessary evil (atm). Obviously, denying bad sites the advertising revenue is a public service, so there’s that.
I’m going to have to object. We don’t use “false positive” and “false negative” as synonyms for Type I and Type II error because they’re not the same thing. The difference is at the heart of the misuse of p-values by so many researchers, and the root of the so-called replication crisis.
Type I error is the risk of falsely concluding that the quantities being compared are meaningfully different when they are not, in fact, meaningfully different. Type II error is the risk of falsely concluding that they are essentially equivalent when they are not, in fact, essentially equivalent. Both are conditional probabilities; you can only get a Type I error when the things are, in truth, essentially equivalent and you can only get a Type II error when they are, in truth, meaningfully different. We define Type I and Type II errors as part of the design of a trial. We cannot calculate the risk of a false positive or a false negative without knowing the probability that the two things are meaningfully different.
This may be a little easier to follow with an example:
Let’s say we have designed an RCT to compare two treatments with Type I error of 0.05 (95% confidence) and Type II error of 0.1 (90% power). Let’s also say that this is the first large phase 3 trial of a promising drug and we know from experience with thousands of similar trials in this context that the new drug will turn out to be meaningfully different from control around 10% of the time.
So, in 1000 trials of this sort, 100 trials will be comparing drugs which are meaningfully different and we will get a false negative for 10 of them (because we only have 90% power). 900 trials will be comparing drugs which are essentially equivalent and we will get a false positive for 45 of them (because we only have 95% confidence).
The false positive rate is 45/135 (33.3%), nowhere near the 5% Type I error we designed the trial with.
Statisticians are awful at naming things. But there is a reason we don’t give these error rates the nice, intuitive names you’d expect. Unfortunately we’re also awful at explaining things properly, so the misunderstanding has persisted anyway.
And this paper tries to rescue p-values from oblivion by calling for 0.005 to replace the usual 0.05 threshold for alpha: Redefine statistical significance.
The 10x number of new words added compared to previous editions, and the nonsensical nature of so many of the new entries, says it has to be AI. There’s no way some of those would make it past a human editor (except one lazily accepting everything the AI suggests as truth).
I am quite old, so remember the transition from scientists writing their own software to systems analysts who specialised in writing software that was fit for purpose. And that was exactly the ideal: the systems analyst was supposed to be someone who could code as well as their programmers could and understand the job the software was designed for as well as the customer did.
None of that seems to have happened. Some of the kids who could code got lucky with billion dollar jackpots from very low hanging fruit. And ever since, we’ve just been hit by waves of kids who can code going straight into software development with absolutely no experience of how work works.
It’s a difficult problem to solve. I have an aunt who developed software in the '60s and '70s who had to retire early because the languages she used became obsolete (apart from a brief bounce running up to Y2K). But it is a problem we absolutely have to solve. So much shitty software, wasting so much effort, for the developers and users alike.
Dunno why you’re getting downvoted. This is a fun question.
I don’t know how to answer it but I guess I would have to bet with my heart and say we skip straight to the last chapter: Trump is toppled and replaced by some only slightly lesser evil who is at least forced to make some (temporary) pro-social concessions to the wider populace.