So there’s this hot new social voice-based gathering place called the Clubhouse. I’m not important enough to be a member, but I’m smart and battle-scarred enough to have ideas on moderately scaling it.
You see, at the moment it’s apparently a nice place… free of spammers, trolls, abusive jerks, and other assorted unlikeables. Why is this? Well, probably for three reasons:
That’s all well and good except for two key problems:
From my understanding, Uber ratings currently work like this for drivers:
- 5 star average: Fine
- 4, 3, or 2 star average: You’ll be fired soon.
- 1 star average: You’re toast
Given this situation (which seems similar across other services with a 1–5 star rating system as well), riders seem to rate like this:
- 5 stars: Fine. Or amazing! Or kinda-poor-but-I-don’t-want-the-driver-to-be-fired!
- 4 stars: Pretty awful!
- 3 or 2 stars: (Mostly unused?)
- 1 star: OMG! BARELY ESCAPED ALIVE!!!
Who knows which screwy situation begat the other one, but here we are, eh?
My hope is…
As someone who is beset by deep disappointment and fear given the state of the U.S. today, I appreciate the intent of calling for a nationwide strike. But I’m concerned that this action would be harmful and ineffective in making our country a better place.
First, there’s the threat to our health and welfare, with medical professionals, police, and other folks in critical positions staying home for a day.
Second, there’s the issue of lost wages for the many, many people who are paid hourly.
There’d be no running over time or interrupting, and candidates would be under more pressure to actually answer questions.
Specifically, this debate would feature…
Do you like getting voicemail? Probably not.
Sure, it’s more convenient for the sender, since they can likely speak faster than type.
But for you, the receiver? You have to spend extra time processing the info, and it’s not even feasible to listen to voicemail in many contexts (e.g, in a meeting, a loud carnival, etc.).
With voicemails, the sender prioritizes their convenience over yours. It’s almost certainly not an intentional or even conscious slight, but it’s frustrating just the same.
Just like with voicemail, tweetstorms and image-pasted “tweetgifs” prioritize the convenience of the sender over the receiver. …
I was destined for you and only you.
Four days and three nights I journeyed… uncomfortably, sometimes indirectly and yet purposefully. Ever in darkness, but dreaming I would once again see the light. That I would see you, be touched by you.
And then… you came to meet me, to hold me and bring me into your home.
But I soon realized I was not alone. There were others — prettier, less common— that caught your eye. I saw you smile at the more petite one beside me before you even deigned to gaze upon me.
I could only hope…
All men. Many seemed to already be acquainted, or in a few cases, fast friends. Clearly they’d been through similar classes before.
And halfway through the class, her fears were realized; everyone was more experienced than she was. More skilled. More at ease. More confident.
She stumbled again. What was she doing here? She didn’t belong, and of course everyone knew it.
What were they thinking? Were they amused at how out-of-her-element she was? Annoyed that she was taking up space that could have been filled with someone more competent, someone that belonged here?
Were they staring at her? No…
My friend and I were FirstWorldChatting about farmers’ markets and the like, when a stranger suddenly waded into the communal hot tub and loudly proclaimed, “NO! That’s just whacked!”
Whoa. I mean, okay, maybe he’s just very opinionated about his organic produce. Weird, but hey, whatever.
Turns out, no, he’s just yet another clueless twit who either doesn’t understand the concept of public space or, perhaps more likely, simply doesn’t give a fig. To clarify, he had joined us in the hot tub while in the middle of a heated discussion with someone on his cell phone. Who does that?!
Adapted from a post I wrote on AdamLasnik.net on June 14, 2009; I feel my sentiments are even more relevant today, especially given the current Twitter fracas re potential changes
Back in 2009, I learned about the turmoil in Iran… from the blogosphere. Some folks insisted that the immediacy of news on this and other breaking topics was a sign that mainstream media had failed, and that online media — specifically “real time” components of social media — had triumphed. But I believe such an assumption is (and was) not only dead wrong, but also dangerous to society.
I travel, dance, play piano, work for (but do NOT speak on behalf of) Google and more.