It's not, it's just a pretty standard and well understood UX principle; A couple of simple words is far more likely to be read than a long fluffy sentence. It's just a UX pattern.
It's like saying effective contrast is a dark pattern.
I think it goes beyond that. "Well designed" temporary signage needs to look out-of-place and basically intentionally ugly.
Temporary signage that fits into the environment will appear permanent, and thereby ignored by the public.
This is why graphic designers use the terms like "effective" rather than aesthetic terminology to describe their work. Sometimes ugly designs are the most effective.
A couple of simple words are far less likely to be read if they do not interrupt your automatic muscle memory.
The long sentence likely would not have been ignored if it covered the elevator buttons, forcing you to recognize that the buttons are no longer visible where you expected them to be.
If your criminal record is truly relevant to the job, then the employer should do the responsible thing and get a proper background check done. Which are factual and non-biased. Such things shouldn't be left up to google page ranking algorithms and media that tends toward sensationalisation. It's lazy and unprofessional.
> Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record?
Is it useful to have people with a history of low level crime habitually unemployable. Don't we want to reduce crime.
> Mark needs to be given the opportunity to demonstrate to an employer hes no longer a cookie monster.
Mark is innocent of further crimes until he is convicted and the employer would need to have reasonable cause to discriminate against him. We have parole and other such mechanisms where official bodies can decide how long a person needs to speed demonstrating they are no longer a criminal, and make sure the relevant people are aware of this. Why leave it up to some random employer armed with google.
> He would do this by taking a lower than average pay,
Why does he deserve lower pay. This is just enabling employers to take advantage of vulnerable people.
> and giving the employer the option to terminate his employment at any time without cause.
The employer has the right to terminate at any time for mark committing a criminal act. He doesn't need this. Plus this is europe and workers have rights
I don't like to break up arguments into tiny pieces and remark on each one - so I'll just wrap this up in 1 thought like a normal person.
You are essentially complaining about human nature. Here in reality people want to know if you've violated someone else's trust before trusting you. We are social beings and if you present two people - "This one betrayed a friend, this other one has not" - 99% of people will choose the later.
You will never ever convince a majority of people that someone who has demonstrated untrustability should be trusted the same as someone who has not. Regardless of how long he spent in a steel and concrete cage.
You misunderstand, I'm saying there are fair and professional ways to find out if someone is trustworthy. Googling their name, and finding some 5 year old article is not one of these. It presents a incomplete picture that is biased towards attention grabbing material from for-profit media. Use proper background checks and references.
There are also fair ways to deal with criminals, and staff you may not trust. Using google results as the bases of randomly deducting pay, removing employment rights, and other discriminatory acts, is not one of these. It would be far too easy for employers to abuse and doesn't lend itself to the employee having stability. This would just increase the chances of the employee returning to crime.
Give yourself a scenario - you have two equal candidates:
a) background check clean, no google results
b) background check lists sealed conviction, no google results
you'll choose?
now another:
a) background check clean, no google results
b) background check lists sealed conviction, google results says he stole some cookies
you'll choose?
Probably (a) both times. Unless in scenario B you can ask about his previous cookie conviction and pay him less and/or able to fire at any time.
By denying all potential information you sow distrust between a mutually consensual relationship. Do you think more or less convicts will be hired when you can't trust background checks to get all the relevant information.
In such a world gossip will replace google. "Did you hear about mark? Oh don't hire him I heard he murdered someone over a batch of cookies!"
This again misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm arguing for background checks that allow employers to make reasonable decisions based on those checks show. and then act within the normal confines of employment law.
I've been through background checks for business, I'll probably have more in the future. They are extremely intrusive and uncomfortable, but I don't have a problem with them, because they are pertinent to the business, and conducted by professionals that are accountable for what they say about me and what they do with my information.
Google combined with any tosser that can put up a their side of a story on the internet is no substitution for a background check. This is a joke. People hitting the front page of google with my name are accountable to no-one. They aren't required to notify me, nevermind ask my permission to gather this information. They have no incentive to report back clear unbiased information
By conducting background research this way you sow distrust. It is not mutually consensual, controllable or fair. I wouldn't go near a company that was doing this without very good reasons. I have no problem with the EU making it difficult to abuse search tools in this way.
hmm, I put your "plainest" language answer into XKCD simple writer, and there was some complexity in there.
In most simple language, the space truck was thrown up, not tossed forward, and this caused a sound wave that was followed with some interesting events in one of the high bits of the sky, between the space truck refuse air and the hotter-than-air stuff in the high sky, all of which need further study because of possible bad things like how true your sky-computer computer-map might be in the area around the "hole" caused by these waves.
Why on earth would they think posting uncensored screenshots from the dark web would be a good idea? When browsing the dark web you should always be going in with images turned off, before you run into child porn at work and end up in prison.
It's true, but if you look at the list of badges, the point above some of them being, in a way, "out of context", makes sense (I don't say it's right in a strict sense; just that it makes sense).
I don't have knowledge of the existing badges though. Certainly, Financial Literacy doesn't sound very outdoors-y :-)
How is it possible to do anything outdoorsy without a budget? Even getting there takes transport money. When I was in Boy Scouts, budgeting for and buying supplies for even a weekend trip was a task the adults did not shelter us from. We also had to do fundraising and keep track of available funds.
This. A long-weekend backpacking trip can easily cost between $20 and $100 per person, depending on: distance traveled and size of cars, tolls, number of days on the trail, whether you need perishables such as fuel for cooking and water filters (often weather and trail dependent), meals eaten on the road, trail passes or campground fees, rental fees if you're planning on floating a portion of the trip, etc. Up-front purchases (e.g., backpack, boots) need to be accounted for as well. Also really basic stuff like "do we have enough cash to pay for campsites along the way".
It's a great opportunity to teach basic accounting skills. Simple stuff: summing costs, figuring out which costs are shared by the group and which ones individuals should be responsible for, planning ahead for forms of payment. More advanced: amortization of big expenses across N years of trips (and related cash flow issues), parameterizing cost calculations over weather conditions and terrain, doing all of this in a spreadsheet so that when we do the trip next year we can change some values and know immediately how much it'll cost, etc.
It's not hard to work finance into all sorts of interactions. Take making cardboard sandals on a blanket outside. You can bring out all of the raw materials: cardboard, string, tape, paint, etc. List the prices for each. Then, figure out how many sandals were made. Add up the costs, and compute the average material cost for each pair of sandals they make. Girls get into it. One might even say: "yea, but we worked on this too; doesn't that count?" You can then factor in labour cost. Then, comes a few eyes that get big: "wow, $2.45 in materials and $5 in labour" (they debated and agreed it'd be great if someone paid them $5 for the hour they spent). Lots of lessons emerged: labor can be the dominant factor in product construction; and noone was really going to pay $7.45 for the cardboard sandals.
"Financial literacy" is a category - not a badge. The badges in that category for 2nd and 3rd graders were Money Management (maybe all those cookie sales?) and Philanthropy... which are things most troops do anyway.
I guess if you do the exercise first you actively know what information you need. So you can skip the content that's irrelevant and the stuff you know well enough already.
I think there's more to it. By turning material into a problem or an exercise, you've already turned on an active learning response. There's no way to coast through the text if you have something to grapple with already.
> For car width, I think that that's also a pretty reasonable width, since it's the perfect width to fit two people side-by-side comfortably, with a bit of room in the middle.
How do you know the width of a standard human isn't determined by 2000 years of people choosing partners that would fit beside them on a cart comfortably.
Additionally, if you needed something that did need persisted you would hopefully have the wit to send it on another service (e.g. email) so automatic filtering for all recipients.
It's like saying effective contrast is a dark pattern.