Yeah the author conveniently ignores the fact that the UX of Mac apps was radically different to that of PC apps, so it’s not that designers/developers were somehow more enlightened back then, it’s just that they were “on rails”
I've had exactly the same feeling. Since the beginning of time, it has generally taken more effort to build something than to review it. This is no longer the case, and it completely breaks some processes.
The quick solution is to escalate the arms race, and start using AI to filter the AI slop, but I'm not sure that's a world I want to work in :)
If you think of it like filters, a human programmer does everything they know and test to avoid bugs, then the AI review catches some things that slip through to catch a larger total number of bugs. But if both sides are AI the same stuff slips through both stages and blows up on production. It makes more sense to just improve the models to make less mistakes than to have AI review itself.
Costco and Sam's Club usually have their filling stations set up for one-way traffic, but offhand those are the only ones I've seen that way in US, Canada, Caribbean, and western/central Europe (though the Euro design of filling stations just off the highway encourages one-way traffic, it doesn't mandate it). Haven't driven myself elsewhere.
Here in Finland at least there are a lot of completely unattended pumps that once you exit the road it’s basically just a patch of land and you pull up in whatever direction you want to match the side of your tank to a free pump.
But in the UK where I’m from and just got back from this is maybe less common.
if building up is bad for tourism, it kills two birds with one stone: more housing and less tourists who want airbnbs. so slowly build up until you stabilise the tourism at the level you want!
Locals in cities do not necessarily like high rise neither. And tourism brings a lot of money and jobs. People won't really like making their city uglier and losing their jobs just to have more housing.
> Locals in cities do not necessarily like high rise neither
It's a lot more selfish and malicious than that. They want to remain housed affordably, so they support rent control, but they don't care about the city being affordable in general or for anyone not already living there. Often they outright oppose it (because those moving in would be ethnic minorities or poorer, with concerns about crime), but they disguise their racism with ridiculous aesthetic preferences about "skylines" and "shadows" and "neighborhood character", block highrises, block most construction, and you end up with rent controls for current residents but years long wait lists. Working 100% as designed.
What locals in attractive locations really want is to restrict supply, because the majority are homeowners and want to preserve their paper net worth. They caused the problem, benefit from it and don't want it fixed.
As an investor, I don't like a investment that throws away 10-30% of its resources, perpetually lowers morale except among the least creative and misses opportunities because their competition is faster.
> prior commitments like the Paris accord were engineered to harm us while allowing China to dominate
Who engineered them to harm us? You’re saying there’s a powerful pro-China cabal that designed the Paris accords on purpose to harm us and benefit China? Come on..
reply