Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Both! It's condescending because it's simultaneously suggesting that:

- there's a class of users who are simply dumb

- the speaker does not consider themselves to be in this class

- one can avoid this hazard by being sufficiently smart

none of which I agree with, and none of which I see evidence for here.

Across every industry I've seen, when new safety devices are invented, old-timers brush it off as unnecessary. (Survival bias: I didn't die!) When they retire, the next generation grows up using the new safety devices, and sees no problem with it. If anything, using the safety device is a signal that you're doing something dangerous! Professional drivers wear more seatbelts, not none. The tradeoff you speak of is usually backwards from what you claim.

This one is shaping up exactly the same. People who grew up with URLs are complaining that Google is trying to "hide" them, even though that's not what anyone on this project said. The generation being born today will wonder why anyone ever used a networked computer by clicking on links with zero assistance in determining whether it was at all legitimate.




The fact that people tend to resist change (true) is logically independent of the fact that safety features carry real costs that may not be worth the benefit (also true). Finding examples of unjustified complaints is not a good argument that most complaints are unjustified.

People get used to anything. Their failure to realize what they are missing is not a good measure how much they are missing. Indeed, the people who are most able to assess the cost of the new compared to the old are exactly the old timers who have experienced both, not the new comers who haven't.


You can avoid this issue through significant domain experience. Knowledge != smart. I find your assertions regarding assurance and networked computing disturbingly naive. If this 'fix' was simply altruism and a crying need it would be apparent to more of an audience than Google. This seems more like sheeps clothing and misdirection from Google - as usual.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: