I'm pretty sure that Wittgenstein, while agreeing with your point about meaning being defined by use, would still argue that there's a lot of unspoken confusion that comes from calling the smartphone a smartphone.
The first thing I did when opening this thread was Ctrl+F to see if anyone was suggesting it should be called a "personal computer", because that's what I've thought best described what the smartphone really has become.
Now, to suggest even trying to use that to refer to smartphones these days would be adding a much heavier does of confusion. But the insight seems fundamentally right to me.
First, I think you mean "less valued". That's generally what happens when there's little demand for something, or when there's a good substitute at a cheaper price.
Second, if all the free, evil ad-sponsored content on the internet is of such "low quality", it certainly would make such services more valuable, as it would offer something scarce. Their conspicuous absence seems to indicate something is amiss with this analysis.
>Their conspicuous absence seems to indicate something is amiss with this analysis.
As I said, these services exist, they're just not very prominent.
That doesn't mean they're not valuable, it just means people don't think they're valuable, and I'm not certain that's a rational decision.
I think if you asked people whether they'd pay say £10 extra on a £300 appliance to be reasonably sure it doesn't have a hugely annoying design flaw, a lot of people would pay.
But if you ask them to pay £10/month for access to a website that gives them that kind of information (even if they can cancel it after one month), they feel like it's a waste of money.
>if all the free, evil ad-sponsored content on the internet is of such "low quality"
I'm not saying the content is low quality, I'm saying the advertising itself is a low quality form of product information.
But the answer to the latter depends on the answer to the former. For example, if people tend to rely on review sites to make their choices, you should make sure your product compares favourably to the competition, and then solicit reviews for it. (And if you can't do that, maybe your product isn't worth buying.)
The question was in a hypothetical context of a world without advertising. My point is that you can't talk about what a business should do in that situation without first clarifying what the alternative to advertising is in this world.
Useful but not sufficient on its own. Gresham's Law, in various incarnations, including Akerlof's "The Market for Lemons" suggests limitations.
A trusted third-party reviewer (Consumer's Union, CarFAX, Kelly Blue Book) helps.
Anecdote: the last really big-ticket item I bought (automobile), I'd had positive experiences with two manufacturer's products previously, but really didn't care for their current offerings within the product class / price range I was seeking. The vehicle I did buy was one I considered based on its Edmunds review -- best in class, multiple years running. Some years on, I've been happy with the purchase (though of course, post hoc rationalisation is a common fallacy).
For other products, other signifiers matter.
On G+ I detailed frustrations looking for a decent LED cabinet-lighting system. I'd exhausted local, online (Amazon and major hardware/lighting store) sources. A recommendation from my G+ contacts was for Ikea. The specific product didn't work, but Ikea had another set of lighting components (separate cord, transformer, remote switch, and lighting elements) which has worked excellently. Took a few weeks longer than intended to find what I was looking for.
Otherwise, I rely strongly on what local retailers will carry and stand behind. Ikea, for some products, turns out to be a good source. Factors depend heavily on what it is I'm purchasing and just how it will have to function.
I'm sure the failed entrepreneurs in this crowd (I'm one of them) here will find it easy to refute that point.
High-quality product is nothing without leads (i.e, potential users, buyers, downloaders, etc), and one way to get consistent, reliable way to get leads is through promotion.
Then there's branding and awareness, which is probably what most ads these days are meant for.
Yeah, it's just too bad you're the only person in the world to define advertising and marketing that way, I guess? At least among people who know what they're talking about.
Well the labels are unimportant. The point is that certain elements of advertising/marketing seem reasonable and it could be argued that they are value adding to consumers as well as the advertisers, while others are manipulative and outright unethical.
That's not a claim that will meet much opposition.
However, to claim that marketing is inherently "manipulative", or that manipulative tactics are even a significant part of it, seems a little ill-informed.
Y Combinator's motto is "Make something people want". To the overwhelming majority of practitioners, this is exactly what marketing sets out to do.
It doesn't matter. The requirements of license seem to be 52 hours of mandatory study/attendance and passing the exam. Zenefits clearly cheated on one of the requirements.
the state wants you to make sure you read everything and that you can answer questions about it. It doesn't seem like a stretch at all, especially considering people run their livelihoods based on that license. It's a license to conduct a proper practice and a career.
The question we are discussing in this thread is whether or not it's a dumb law. Your comment simply reiterates that the law exists, which no one disputes.
52 hours of study to start a whole new career do not seem redundant to me. Specially when the field is highly sensitive, legal repercussions are huge, collateral damage arising out of wrong communications can be millions of dollars.
Besides, the "redundant" requirements just caught a person trying to cheat -- Zenefits. So you cannot even claim they aren't working.
Presumably, if the exam is well-designed, you can't pass it without understanding the material, which you could learn over however many hours you like. Requiring both an exam and a mandatory number of hours seems redundant.
It's pretty core to HN that everyone sees the same stuff (modulo 'showdead' in profiles)—same front page, same comments. There's no question that this brings many local annoyances, but it also has some global advantages. So we're reluctant to change it.
So not thinking about things you don't like makes them disappear?
That's odd, because I spend about 0% of my time thinking about dumb Hacker News comments, and yet I can see them right there, and before you know it, I've read them and wasted my precious time. How come?
>So not thinking about things you don't like makes them disappear?
Precisely. Never underestimate the power of the logic-proof compartment. Every propagandist since Edward Bernays has understood that you can repeat information enough times to make it real. Likewise it works in reverse.
>...and before you know it, I've read them and wasted my precious time. How come?
If you're still here, then how precious is your time, really? Or are you simply trying to justify not spending your every waking moment...what is it they say in Silicon Valley..."hustling"?
I'm proposing HN introduce a feature that exists on virtually every message board on the internet (i.e. blocking users). That's because its usefulness is well-recognised.
I fail to see what being here has to do with how precious my time is. My time is precious to me as soon as I start to value some experiences over others and decide which ones I consider valuable, and which ones I consider a waste. I don't have to be spending my every waking moment "hustling" to have a concept of value.
Reading comments from authors that I find interesting is a valuable use of my time.
Reading comments from authors that I find stupid and annoying is a waste of my time.
That's why I wish I could prevent that from happening.
"Not thinking" about the existence of such users is in no way a solution to that problem.
Am I supposed to carefully read every stupid comment from a poster that so far has only annoyed me on the off chance that he writes something insightful once in a blue moon?
I'll ignore him and take that risk. I'm sure it's still a +EV move overall.
Socrates criticized writing and reading because to him it atrophied the ability to remember things. I wonder what will happen to your brain if you use technology to filter things you don't like. Will you become more sensitive to annoyances you haven't yet blocked?
But maybe you're in too deep, and a filter might be good for you, because you seem to be unable to ignore my noisy and precious-time-wasting posts on your own.
The first thing I did when opening this thread was Ctrl+F to see if anyone was suggesting it should be called a "personal computer", because that's what I've thought best described what the smartphone really has become.
Now, to suggest even trying to use that to refer to smartphones these days would be adding a much heavier does of confusion. But the insight seems fundamentally right to me.
Interesting article on the subject that brings up this point: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/11/7/mobile-ecosyste...