Posted on 11/26/2025 7:31:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I hope they have enough ammo to protect their stored flood from the roving bands of starving people.
I was never mind-controlled to do anything or think anything. It is true, however, that most people do not think for themselves or even look beyond a day or two.
Most meetings are wasteful, not just software meetings. Only a few people ever do the actual work, most are hostile bystanders placed to slow things down.
Most products of technology ARE beneficial. People, on the other hand, can't do anything in moderation including using our technical marvels.
Makes ME glad that toilet paper is analog!
I’m glad you’ve never been mind-controlled. But be vigilant for future attempts, because those who think they can’t be mind-controlled are at higher risk of it.
What I meant about meetings was that computer technology is supposed to work efficiently, which wouldn’t require meeting after meeting.
I was speaking of benefits to quality of life. Part of the difficulty here is in defining terms like “happiness” and “contentment,” which are generally thought to be the best measures for quality of life.
Anyway, I’m convinced that perceived benefits of technology are mostly if not entirely imagined.
It usually does once it has been completed. But, during development, it takes interaction among developers to bring a large project together. Projects are mismanaged and so are meetings. Software efforts are often made more difficult through the use of untalented systems designers and software engineers. Meetings do need to take place when changes must be made across numerous subsystems.
I can't speak to non-software related hiccups related to computer technology; however, I suspect that is mostly due to users not understanding the software they use and sometimes their own processes.
In my experience, a typical software product is sold, then it’s used, and users have to put up with regular inefficiencies of various kinds until the company scraps it and then gets another flawed system.
I know what I’m about to say might touch on sensitivities, but let’s be men. We can handle it:
The idea that digital technology is flawless is a lot like a religious belief.
Perhaps you've never needed an MRI or CAT-SCAN, or any other sophisticated medical apparatus attached to your bod.
The benefits to technology are numerous. I'll maintain that people rely on cell-phones and computers games because they lack motivation or talent of any kind.
My happiness is not tied to the use of technology; but, I do get a lot of satisfaction from using it and creating it. Even with that, I can navigate by map-and-compass, can you?
You haven't heard that from me. I have fixed a lot of my own bugs as well as those made by others.
Software woes comes from at least three sources: System designers, software engineers, and users. The lion's share of trouble originates with the users.
In the beginning of a project, the systems designers grapple with the end users or user management in order to design the software system. In most cases the users do not understand their own internal data flow or their management operations. They have a terrible time articulating their needs to the system designers. System designers are pretty good at ferreting out the needs of the user; yet, they can make mistakes due to the inadequate understanding or communications on the part of the user. The system designers are less than perfect when it comes to disseminating the design to the developers. Developers do not always coordinate their work across the subsystems. User communities typically change the requirements and specifications numerous times during development, which causes havoc in the software development process, causing serious bugs to become embedded in the system.
Once a system is deployed, it becomes obvious that user management didn't really know what the ultimate users actually wanted or needed. The actual users are almost never trained.
Other than that, its a smooth process. ;-D
It seems reasonable to conclude that system designers have the opportunity to be a user and as such to figure out what the user will need. I think what the designers often do is consult with groups of people who are in positions similar to the typical user.
But again, it shouldn’t be hard for the designers to figure out the needs of the user by sitting there and working the keyboard a little. And I mean they should figure out most if not all such needs.
Another way to think of this is the quality of the product is fully the responsibility of the people making the product. It’s how the system has functioned for many centuries. Until digital technology came along. Maybe it has to do with the culture of people who become coders. I was friends with one guy who invented a product for Microsoft. Of course, he’s a brilliant guy. But he was the typical spoiled kid, a teenage hacker with intense focus who later met the right people. Many such individuals bring an attitude of entitlement to the game. I think this could have cultivated an industry-wide philosophy of “let’s milk the user.”
I don’t blame you for thinking the user needs to help design the system. I assume you’re touting the established beliefs in the industry.
What I would advise system designers is twofold:
1. focus on the distinction between the practical function and aesthetic function in product features, and try not to conflate the two
2. seek to produce order rather than chaos, recalling that the definition of order in physics is when a given event or phenomenon can only be achieved in one way (for example, don’t have two tabs on the same web page that do the same thing)
The marketing people are higher up the corporate food chain than developers, so good products are terminated prematurely, new designs are made that satisfy the marketing department more than anyone else, and then a development schedule is fixed that is always too short to develop for quality.
There are two major kinds of development projects. The first is the development of software products like "office suits" and "games". These experience no end-user involvement, and are conducted mostly to an overly tight time schedule. Marketing people don't seem to care about the end user. The strategy is to obsolete the previous versions and force customers to repurchase. The biggest of those, and the worst behaved, is Microsoft. (Remember "the ribbon" forced against the will of ALL users? I still use Word 2003 because of that unwelcome improvement.) How about those forced changes through the years, now the forced adoption of Win 11? This isn't about quality, this is about money.
The other type of development is software that is made under contract to solve a particular set of problems. This includes hospital management systems, power plant operating software, aircraft avionics, and so on. Projects in this category is where you find the systems designers, once known as "systems analysts". Those people are trained to interview the user community to discover the data flow and data needs of the organization. Once these analysts are through with their discovery phase, the user organization has an understanding of their own workplace as never before. The design phase is supposed to include "buy in" from everyone who was interviewed during discovery. Once designs are approved actual software development commences. Software development should remain as flexible as possible in order to accommodate late breaking understandings.
Systems analysis and software engineering definitely have process and quality rules. Teams composed of younger people often violate those rules. Schedule pressure imposed from outside of the development team cause a great deal of damage to system quality. It is almost impossible to control that, given the management hierarchy and the non-technical nature of marketing and upper management dweebs.
Product testing is a giant can of worms. Few in the market-driven community do this extensively.
Here is the actual thrust of the conversation. Anyone who believes this knows no history, neither did they live in an age without technology. Consider the following and then reevaluate your statement:
1 - People stay healthier and live a great deal longer than in the days of lower technology.
2 - Parents no longer have to birth twelve children in hopes that two will live to be adults.
3 - Women don't die in childbirth anywhere near as often merely decades ago.
4 - Transportation is faster and safer than ever before, and most people can afford it.
5 - Women aren't slaves to the laundry, cooking, or washing dishes.
6 - The quality of the clothes we wear has dramatically improved, and households aren't burdened by making them.
7 - Paper and writing instruments are significantly improved. Books are affordable.
8 - Communicating with someone anywhere in the world can occur instantly upon a whim rather than several months.
9 - Anyone has instant access to information regarding any subject, and this is usually free.
10- People having a medical emergency can get help well within the time previous citizens would die.
This is a woefully brief list of the quality of life that is brought to us through technology. King Henry XII would have killed for the want of duct tape.
But these things are obvious, as are any others that might be added to that list to change it from brief to complete.
And I might very well concede with washing machines and quality of clothing (excluding made in China). But I do not concede on the point of digital technology.
Life is no more fulfilling than it was in the days of having twelve children, and people are probably less content. This is the real measure of quality of life.
Digital electronics is essential to many of the things on my list. If you restricted your scope to texting, Twitter, Youtube, and so on, I'd agree with you.
1 - The medical equipment that helps us survive hospital stays is all digital.
2 - Communicating anywhere in the world upon a whim is all digital.
3 - Instant access to information is all digital.
4 - The remarkable fuel efficiency of today's vehicles is all digital.
5 - GPS navigation is all digital.
6 - Crystal clear media presentation is all digital.
7 - Precision CNC machining is all digital.
8 - 3D printing is all digital.
9 - Incredibly wonderful engineering drawing packages are all digital.
10- Remarkably versatile image post-processing is all digital.
11- Learning about our solar system, and far reaches of space is all digital.
This list also goes on for a long long time.
The only negatives I see are people using text when they aught to sit down with each other and converse and the often false information they absorb from YouTube. But, these aren't the fault of the digital technologies, these are the faults of users.
Many years ago, I was on a plane from Ontario California to Atlanta. I was seated near the back that was occupied by several young Amish boys/men.
They had been to California for some kind of a conference. The bought and were bringing home new laptop computers. They were moving around from seat to seat to see/learn what another had come up with on the new computers.
Although Amish, they made sure I knew, they were decidedly ontop of the new computers. By now, they are all grown men
I also sat with an Amish family that was vacationing in Sarasota, Florida. We had a grand conversation. He told me that his particular group did not shun the use of power tools, cellular phones, or computers. The reason these are typically shunned is because some Amish believe they take time away from personal interaction with the family or can corrupt their beliefs. He went on to say that power tools allow them to be a great deal more productive, which has the affect to giving them more time with the family. His group has inspectors to maintain the quality of work. He went on to say that their electronics is carefully used in moderation. When I asked him about the use of cars, he just laughed and said, "We live in Ohio, and didn't walk to their vacation or ride a buggy." Their farm uses nice trucks.
I had a good time conversing with them, and learned a lot.
But your list only shows our dependence on digital electronics. It does not show that we’re better off now because of it.
My assertion is we’re not better off, in fact with digital technology we’ve probably made things worse for ourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.