Ideally we'd link it to a political move: "Look at how this consumer was hurt and oppressed, but with the power of access to their own damn stuff they were able to repair it to usefulness."
Ideally we'd link it to a political move, and use that for staying-power: "Look at how this consumer was hurt and oppressed, but with the power of access to their own damn stuff they were able to repair it to usefulness."
I feel this overlaps with the "Politician's Syllogism" [0]:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.
In other words, if we start by choosing an option without trying to determine what makes it best/good/appropriate, then failing to measure results seems like a continuation of the same carelessness.
> it was always odd to me that "booking a [flight|hotel|concert tickets]" is the canonical example
Yeah, the weird part is how the people promoting the idea seem to believe the average (?) consumer will tolerate a particular risk/reward profile: It implies over-spending or cancellation fees or return-restocking fees are beyond reasonable concern, trivial compared to the minutes it saves the user who never does any verification. ("It's one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?")
With the caveat that I am not the average user, my most philosophically-pleasing system would be an LLM which generates and iterates "normal" search parameters. Then the user has the option to view, tweak, and and--just maybe--learn the underlying query language.
reply