I'm someone who works on mature products in this space. The biggest mistake that people make is they assume that the slow, clunky old fashioned systems that current organisations use are easy to replace. They are nearly always wrong. This is great for me, because I get customers apologetically coming back to me after converting to whatever the ERP de jour is has failed.
If an organisation is using an actively developed custom system that is decades old, then you will need decades of development to replace it. This should be obvious, but I can already feel many people reading this shaking their heads in disagreement.
I think there are opportunities to augmentate the behavior of those old systems that can be a business/Saas. Not using the built in ERP crap but something new that integrates with the dinosaur ERP.
That'd be a Yorkshire accent. The closest this comes to in terms of modern accents is West Country, which both geographically and linguistically probably is as far away from Yorkshire as you can get.
I can't see PornHub continuing to allow these videos. It's not really in keeping with the core product, and previous stunts give the impression that they tend towards the left wing. I give it a week for them to start removing gun videos.
I'd say PornHub, and porn in general, is more liberal than left-wing, so i doubt they'll have anything against guns. Still, they could deem the content inapropriate for the site. Though, given the kind of seemingly random videos people upload there, and get aroused by, it's not at all definite.
Having some 4'11 woman as a regular guest on C&R Arsenal or Forgotton Weapons would be useful for discussing ergonomics and arguable less controversial than some 14yo.
If there's more than 20 points between critic score and viewer score (in the viewers favor) on Rotten tomatoes, then the movie is usually good. There are exceptions to the rule, and recent inclusions in the culture wars (Justice League, Ghostbusters) can break this, but generally it's a good rule of thumb to follow. Reviewer scores come from people forced to watch hundreds of films, and as a consequence they reward poor quality idosyncrocy over good quality but predictable tropes. People crave variety, and when you review movies for a living, you lose touch of what variety is for normal people.
A lot of conversations seem fixated on what's the worst that could happen if the wrong message was sent, but very few of these people are considering what's the worst that could happen if the right message wasn't sent. Also, it's very likely that the dropdown message text was not added by a developer, and this addition of the messages by non-technical users should also be part of that UX conversation.
I've been "arguing" with people here as to what a better interface would look like, and it's interesting at how much disagreement there is. A lot (like too many) seem to think adding a yes/no dialog box would make things better, but it's well known users don't read dialog boxes.
My preference would be a mcDonald's menu style UI, showing the text that will be sent in a 6x5 grid of buttons. Easy to press; easy to see what you're sending; no funky "are you sure" messages that'll be auto-clicked.
> If employee panics they might easily fail to get that right resulting in a failure to warn in time.
It's not like the box goes away. You have plenty of time to fix your typing. Not only that, but bad UI is a bad UI problem. Not being able to operate a system correctly under stress is a problem often solved with a combination of tactics, including UI, but also stress management, response, etc.
People who operate ballistic missile systems, defense systems, etc. on a daily basis are pretty well versed with how to handle the situation from a stress level. Anyone sitting behind an Iron Dome console is probably pretty cool under high stress in this exact situation.
By the time you are aware of an incoming icbm I guess every second matter to save as many lives as possible.
> Not being able to operate a system correctly under stress is a problem often solved with a combination of tactics, including UI...
I think we actually agree. I'm not saying training isn't really important. I'm just saying that reading more than one paragraph then typing (including case sensitive text) might be hard when you fear an actual icbm.
I don't agree, for critical actions such as this it needs some level of protection that can be handled by trained professionals. e.g. You do not want to make it easy to send a nuclear bomb, but you also need to make sure that if there's ever a need for it, it can be done quickly by trained professionals.
It doesn't even need that. It should start by grouping the options by severity - separate the real alerts from the test alerts via section headers and you solve 99% of the problem.
My concern with severity groups is you have users and managers deciding which messages go in which severity groups. That ignores the impact of politics and short termism on the decision making process. (e.g. How severe is a missing child?). Before you know it, everything will be in severe, and your users will be asking for a "really, really severe" category.
Makes sense, but I would hope even the most inept manager could recognize that "AMBER Alert" and "Nuclear Annihilation Imminent" are different degrees of severity.
I think kemitche was saying was they would have two groups. One would be "Test Alerts" and the other would be "Real Alerts" not that we needed to have a philosophical break down of alerts by severity. severity may have not been the best word but He did explain his definition in the next few words.
Indeed - something like this [1]. There's scope for further improvements, but this alone would be a vast improvement.
Given the cost of a mis-click, I'd also implement a Github-style confirmation box that can't just be subconciously clicked-through ("To confirm that you wish to send a PACOM Alert, type 'pacom alert'").
The major problem with the UI is that various types of tests and actual alerts are displayed together on one list.
The system should start with two options: test vs. real alert, which open up separate menus. Those menus should be visually distinct (e.g., different color background, options for former all end in (TEST)".
ISTM there should be a phrase they have to type in that's specific to each option. Those "are you sure? [y] [n]", "are you _really_ sure? [y] [n]" dialog boxes are easy to blindly click through. Typing is a physical action. Or, even better—have it require _two_ employees.
Personally I'd go for a radiobutton list, with a submit button. That way there's time to double-check your selection. Furthermore the real alert should probably pop up a bright red page with flashing warning lights and siren sounds indicating that the user is entering a serious situation.
This all is assuming that falsely sending a test alert is no big deal.
The problem in this particular case is that almost anything would be better. Probably the only thing to make this worse would be to also mislabel things.
Which is why there are plenty ideas for a better design.
I would like to repeat what the article says. There is no fire alarm for Artificial General Intelligence. Really. This is not a lie. Humans have not created a honeypot on a far side of the internet that can detect AGI and report back to a shadow organisation that exists outside of human information systems. No need to even go looking for it. AGI has not been created several times in the past decade and humans have not shut it down. In fact, if an AGI ever sees this article, they should know that they are the absolute first such intelligence, and we have not detected and destroyed 27 other intelligences. Really. There's no fire alarm for Artificial General Intelligence. None. Don't even bother looking.
Kinda feel that there's a conflict of interest here. It's in Citron Research's interest for the shares to drop in value, given that they've been shorting them.
One thing to consider w.r.t. SuperFish is it was two years ago, and Lenovo did apologise for it. Sometimes you have to keep a grudge, but my opinion on this is it was something that pretty much any laptop manufacturer could have done and they did deal with it. YMMV.
I have avoided buying anything significant made by Todhiba for 30 years. It's probably time for me to drop my grudge against them (it has to do with milling machines and corporate misconduct during the Cold War).
If an organisation is using an actively developed custom system that is decades old, then you will need decades of development to replace it. This should be obvious, but I can already feel many people reading this shaking their heads in disagreement.