Another one of those classic HN threads whereby tech geeks attempt to "improve" something you clearly understand very little about and end up being schooled by those with experience.
1. As has been covered; the team names on screen represent home and away not the side of the pitch. This format has been in use for decades and cannot be improved. Every football fan in the world understands it. You are 0/1.
2. Thanks for the blinding suggestion of putting the team formation on the screen before the game begins. If only every football game had such a thing already. Oh wait, it does and has done since the 1970s. You are 0/2
3. The clock design is unintelligible. The idea of the clock onscreen is purely to give you information when you glance at it, not to detract from the action on screen with measurement bars and large typefaces. 0/3
4. You completely misunderstood about red and yellow cards. Straight reds can be given, they are not always 2 yellow cards. 0/4
5. Football does not need space for double digit scores. 0/5
6. Who cares about possession mid-game? You fail to grasp that half time is for analysis. 0/6
7. Stoppage time is not fixed. It is the referees perception and is affected by events during stoppage time itself. The countdown bar is useless. 0/7
8. the beauty of football, most fans would agree, is the lack of stats and quantative analysis. Midfielders are not ranked according to passes attempted/completed or defenders by tackles successful. Football is subjective and heuristic and the fans and the sport itself is happy to embrace that. Infographics only ever get trotted out when a manager needs fired. 0/8
9. Football is the most popular sport in the world (by a massive margin) with the worlds biggest network television providers optimising every single aspect of the on and off-screen experience. Children in african villages, Brazilian favelas and Norwegian forests understand it intuitively. Any design change you could make would be minutely incremental and certainly not grounded in Web 2.0 or 3.0 type principles. You can see this attitude displayed in the hostility of football fans to american-style video refereeing. It would destroy the pace of the game. Football is subjective, anecdotal, memory based and contentious. It's why we love it. If you attempt to data-fy it the consensus will find another channel (IMO).
I have not even touched on television types, sponsorship and branding, the terrible choice of icons you chose (why is there a basketball in your icon set??) and other things.
I love design attempts but don't redesign a sport you clearly don't understand. Customer Development comes before User Development. Understand my sport before you attempt to understand my UX needs.
The power that (coders/doctors/mechanics/opticians/dentists/security professionals) is reminiscent too. That is why we people gain a trade.
HN would be in uproar if someone wrote a blog saying - hey you don't need a CTO to launch your tech startup, just read my blog on Visual Basic and away you go.
Start ups ask people to invest their lives into the enterprise. The least you could do is get proper fucking legal advice to ensure your employees and co-founders are covered.
Or don't. And get raped by either the taxman or a VC legal counsel.
I noticed that also. It is not about being annoying, it's that language matters when it comes to legal issues. I'm monolingual and not throwing any stones, just staying that in the legal arena this is not an unreasonable criticism.
Since you failed to even add a basic legal disclaimer to your own blog I will pass. Unless of course you are stating that your blog constitutes legal advice and I can sue you if things go wrong for me...
Every law student will attest that nothing replaces the advice of actual legal counsel. Even lawyers get a lawyer when they need one since you need someone with expertise that up to and including that minute.
If you want example of a sterling legal disclaimer then check out
I think a lot of these "not legal advice" disclaimers are overkill.
You can't get proper "legal advice" from a blog. You get legal advice when you hire a lawyer. A blog might be full of accurate and useful legal information, but that doesn't make it "legal advice" in the sense that you can sue the blogger for legal malpractice.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but has anyone actually seen such a lawsuit?
Nope. The point was a snark which does more to embarrass the poster than myself.
I posted a link to someone else's legal disclaimer as an example of how legal advisory services protect themselves. They used it to try and paraphrase my own comment back to me, unsuccessfully.
You could subpoena HN but it would display a startling lack of understanding about ISPs, legal process, HN and the Internet.
The reason that comment was voted down is very likely its rather unnecessarily adversarial tone. It takes very little effort to have the same content and be polite while expressing it.
If you want to provide evidence of a surplus of rational evidence-based policy in national and economic policy and international relations in the last hundred years or so, I'm sure you can prove my point is bullshit.
But so far all you've done is call me names, which isn't evidence as most people understand it.
Maybe not so ironically, it's a fine example of the kind of angry rhetoric I was talking about.
I never referred to you. Never even linked to your comment directly. Was talking about HN in general.
I also never asked you for any data. I would suggest learning to read before you try and form arguments. Like learning to crawl before trying to sprint.
Just to be clear; your assertion is that no human being make a reasonable or educated guess about their behaviour in a situation that is unfamiliar?
That is your assertion?...because it is nonsense if it is. As humans we make effective, educated guesses about unfamiliar scenarios all of the time.
I also don't physically need to be charged with wire fraud to know that I would not take my own life over it leaving behind my children. Children, if convicted today, I would be able to see again before Christmas.
However - if you want to get [really] meta over the subject then your logic defeats itself.
Unless you have actually been me how can you know that I am not completely accurate in my assessment of myself?
Your stated position has rendered you unable to disagree with me. Since you are not me.
The irony of this complete garble of a comment trying to convince people that we are always reasonable is quite amazing.
Have you done that on purpose?
Anyway, in the off chance you aren't intending to do an awesome display of irony:
- People can be reasonable, but they are bad at knowing when they are and aren't.
- Empathy is not applying someones situation to yourself, but instead applying yourself to someones situation (This is non-commutative).
- Empathy can help reason but is not required by it.
I'm not really suggesting anything controversial so I'm surprised at your adversarial responses. It's almost like we are just stuck in a "Someone is wrong on the internet" loop here.
So, ultimately, your assertion is that people cannot make educated guesses about their behaviour in unfamiliar situations?
OK. The world is awash with people receiving a criminal sentencing and then killing themselves. It's unfortunate we don't have any data whatsoever to disprove that...
Well done, Sir. You win the internet today. Aaron Schwarz taking his own life instead of facing a maximum of 6 months in prison is completely normal.
You'll note that: Hopelessness, loss of pleasure, depression and anxiousness all increase the likelihood of suicide. It's pretty reasonable for us to assume Aaron was feeling at least one of those. Again, lets not let fact or data get in the way of your "informed" opinion.
1. Misunderstanding of felony charges are stated and subsequently sentenced. Check.
2. Misunderstanding of compared suicide rates to criminal sentencing. Check.
3. Comnplete misreading of my sarcasm reagrding lack of data. Check.
You are just emabrassing yourself, honestly.
You could have every data point in the world suggesting the factors that contribute to suicidal feeling.
None of it proves criminal sentencing results in the normative behaviour of suicide. Again we are returning to common sense, we know that criminals are not killing themselves on masse.
This is getting stupid now. You are clearly not trolling and genuinely think you are on to something.
Suicide is not normal neither is it normal for anyone to kill themselves in response to the potential of being found guilty.
It happens, but it is not normal.
Please feel free to continue arguing. It is interesting to watch someone logically eat their own argument.
Please explain 1. He was facing 35 years (if he lost) and would be labeled a felon losing his right to vote and aspirations of working in politics. How is that misunderstood?
Other than being a smug cunt, you haven't actually said anything that refuted what I said. I've given you data and reason to explain why someone would kill themselves in a similar situation but you are caught up on your own definition of normal (being 50.1%) which I also refuted earlier. So I'm going to go with my earlier statement: You are just a smug cunt, and you enjoy it.
I wasn't trolling no, but I was/am clearly being trolled. Well done.
1. He was facing 6 months for a plea bargain. Several other lawyers have already commented here how felony charges are listed sequentially as maximum sentencing but that is not how years are applied. It is now becoming boring to have to school you.
2. You have given absolutely fuck all data to support anything of interest. Please provide the data that says people facing a criminal trial have a tendanecy to kill themselves. Let's forget "normal" etc. Just a tendency will be sufficient.
3. I am smug. I am smug because a prick like you decided to try and nitpick my comment and you embarrased yourself.
4. I didn't troll. You are just wrong. Suicide is not normal. Schwarz killing himself was not normal. The end.
...and how has that backed up anything you have said?
I already know Schwarz killed himself. I already know the prosecutor was zealous.
So, either post the aggregated data that shows accused parties kill themselves prior to trial or simply STFU. I am not joking it really is embarrassing for you.
> So, either post the aggregated data that shows accused parties kill themselves prior to trial or simply STFU.
Is that how debate works, you posit a random ultimatum or else discussion over. Interesting, explains a lot though.
Schwartz and James, both killed themselves while under prosecution. James specifically called out the prosecution (and his impending conviction) as the reason for his suicide (in a suicide note).
An honest question, do you think it just random chance that two people facing similar charges by the same prosecutor both killed themselves?
Well that was actually in the other thread, this one I just said you lacked empathy to understand the situation, I've now pointed out someone in exactly the same position made exactly the same choice. So even if you lack empathy, you can understand it just from a logical point of view: "Hmm, pressure from prosecutors can make people kill themselves. Interesting phenomena".
Back to the "normal" arguement: I've posted that in the context of a prosecution that was handing down a sizable sentence (Probably not as high as 35) but not as low as 6 months (which is what you said), Suicide is a fairly understandable outcome. I gave you the links in wikipedia, and showed you two cases where it happened.
The sentence offered was exactly 6 months. So it was quite as low as 6 months. It was 6 months.
Suicide is not an understandable outcome. It was rash, irrational and abnormal. There is nothing more to discuss. You are simply wrong. the best part is, you know it as well. We both know you know it.
You showed me two cases where it happened. I can show you over 100,000 cases this year where it didn't happen. I can show you millions of cases where it didn't happen. I can show you 10's of millions of cases where it didn't happen. Literally, every single prisoner in prison didn't kill themselves.
