sidenote: While I hate the dead embeds being held hostage for money, I do love that the broken graphs return a 402 error. This is the only case I’ve actually seen a 402 response properly used! That HTTP status literally means “payment required”.
sidenote: While I hate the dead embeds being held hostage for money, I do love that the broken graphs return a 402 error. This is the only case I’ve actually seen a 402 response properly used! That HTTP status literally means “payment required”.
I love the use of the status code. And it’s the only time I’ve seen it properly used as well. Also, I was just looking at using the plotly python library to show some fairly mundane graphs. The documentation makes it look like there’s no chance that my usage could trigger a payment requirement, but now I’ll need to give that some extra scrutiny. I’d be pretty irate if that happened to me.
I reject the intro already. There is nothing scientific about preferences. I like my MX Black and Brown and I can’t say why - and that’s not important. I tried Red and I prefer Black. I tried Blue and I’d rather use most non-mechanical ones over Blues. It’s like the fabric of your couch or your brand of soft drink…
Yes, but an important part of a review is to try and convey objectively what the product is like so that you can decide if it fits your subjective preferences without actually having tried it.
The problem is, you might not be able to say why - neither can most people. But lots of them do like to say why, so unaware of the fact they bundle all of their experiences and biases into these potentially misleading reviews, which are generally meaningless outside of the experiences, preferences, biology etc., of some given person.
Some examples: your favourite brand of soft drink is likely to be your favourite in part because of intense research on the part of Coca Cola Amatil or one of their competitors. Likewise your couch fabric is from a carefully researched, selected, and marketed subset of profitable fabrics available to that manufacturer.
Some disclaimers: sometimes they aren’t. I prefer the smell of two stroke engines because that’s how fast exciting bikes smelled when I was a teenager and getting up to much naughtiness on them. And don’t assume that manufacturers research your preferences because they want to satisfy them; it’s as often done to understand them as a precursor to manipulating them.
But please don’t take this as anti-capitalist polemic :) I’d actually prefer (heh) laissez-faire capitalism to our current mixed market. But I’d prefer it warts and all, and if you don’t think scientific treatment of preferences is one of those warts (or sometimes beauty spots), you’re probably being played more easily than those who do.
Edited to add: and sometimes it works the other way around, when aggregate preferences reveal truth. I recall - but annoyingly can’t now find - a study that demonstrated cross cultural preferences for certain types of landscape beauty that implied their suitability for habitation by primitive humans. That is, our preferences for beautiful landscapes may be a consequence of our recent evolution.
OK, please point me to any source why I would prefer Coke over Pepsi? Apparently both companies did an excessive amount of research how to win me over?
Tongue in cheek aside, maybe I was overly terse and other have said it better. But sometimes I’d just prefer my new car to be blue and not red, even if there was a measurable advantage - I just don’t like the color.
Same with MX Blues. You might be able to persuade me that I could type 20% faster. Unless I was entering in a speed-typing contest I’d still stick to the other ones for work and leisure.
I think the main problem is that people who want to scientifically quantify things sometimes just overlook people’s priorities. For decades I simply chose my CPU vendor for 2 criteria: speed vs price and “are there known problems with the platform/chipset” - nothing else mattered. Coming to mainboards it was already some sort of “does it have the correct features?” and just like that all scientific things went off the board.
Good point about the market only providing a certain subset of things to have preferences for. But I am not sure this is the correct discussion, it just limits certain criteria to the most mainstream methods. I.e. the “perfect” version of something is either too expensive or has some other drawback that it won’t even be on the normal market, so we consumers have to adjust our preferences to what is available. But I think that brings it out of scope. I honestly do not care about a scientifically better keyboard switch if I can’t buy it. And then I’d still need to like it ;)
As expected, both the normal and the brain-damaged volunteers preferred Pepsi to Coke when they did not know what they were drinking. And, as expected, those with healthy brains switched their preference when they knew what they were drinking. But those who had damage to their VMPC – their brain’s “brand appreciation” module – did not change preferences. They liked Pepsi better whether or not they knew what they were drinking. Without the ability to unconsciously experience a warm and fuzzy feeling toward a brand name, there is no Pepsi paradox.
I think the main problem is that people who want to scientifically quantify things sometimes just overlook people’s priorities.
Yes, agreed. There are a couple of drivers for this; it’s easier to deal with people in the aggregate when looking at stats, and also, people buy into the idea of intrinsic value (which is itself a philosophical error). It’s never valid to ask “is X valuable” only “for whom is X valuable, and for what purpose?”
I thought this was very interesting. I’m a latecomer to modern mechanical keyboards, but I grew up with a buckling spring keyboard, learned to type properly on an IBM Selectric II, and had a buckling spring keyboard in the early 1990s. When I finally got a mechanical keyboard last year, I selected Cherry MX Brown (the keyboard I wanted had choice of brown, red, or blue), on the basis that it’s supposed to be tactile but quiet.
That didn’t exactly work out for me. The tactile ‘bump’ on this switch is almost too light for me to feel, and it’s certainly too light to keep me from bottoming out the keystroke. So I still type loudly, it’s just the key rather than the switch. I still like it better than my previous membrane keyboard, but it is far from what I was expecting. And the graphs on this article explain why. I do a little better with blues, but what I really want is a non-clicky keyboard with the feedback of a buckling spring. I guess that’s either technically difficult, or there’s no market for it.
Most of the embedded graphs don’t work since apparently the author needs to pay for a plotly subscription.
But the Way Back Machine comes to the rescue! You can see them here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170606192003/https://input.club/the-problem-with-mechanical-switch-reviews/
sidenote: While I hate the dead embeds being held hostage for money, I do love that the broken graphs return a 402 error. This is the only case I’ve actually seen a 402 response properly used! That HTTP status literally means “payment required”.
Also, “Plot twist!” is a hilarious headline for an error page on “plotly”.
I hope that once you do pay them, you get a message saying The plotly thickens.
That’s crazy, they worked when I submitted it - I must have been one of that last, lucky few….
I love the use of the status code. And it’s the only time I’ve seen it properly used as well. Also, I was just looking at using the plotly python library to show some fairly mundane graphs. The documentation makes it look like there’s no chance that my usage could trigger a payment requirement, but now I’ll need to give that some extra scrutiny. I’d be pretty irate if that happened to me.
I reject the intro already. There is nothing scientific about preferences. I like my MX Black and Brown and I can’t say why - and that’s not important. I tried Red and I prefer Black. I tried Blue and I’d rather use most non-mechanical ones over Blues. It’s like the fabric of your couch or your brand of soft drink…
Yes, but an important part of a review is to try and convey objectively what the product is like so that you can decide if it fits your subjective preferences without actually having tried it.
The problem is, you might not be able to say why - neither can most people. But lots of them do like to say why, so unaware of the fact they bundle all of their experiences and biases into these potentially misleading reviews, which are generally meaningless outside of the experiences, preferences, biology etc., of some given person.
And it is not about the sound, but maybe it is about the sound ;)
Try all, change when bored! https://github.com/deejayy/cliqsound
Yeah, preference is subjective. They need to provide a group of reviewers, who each give their subjective take.
Except when there is.
Some examples: your favourite brand of soft drink is likely to be your favourite in part because of intense research on the part of Coca Cola Amatil or one of their competitors. Likewise your couch fabric is from a carefully researched, selected, and marketed subset of profitable fabrics available to that manufacturer.
Some disclaimers: sometimes they aren’t. I prefer the smell of two stroke engines because that’s how fast exciting bikes smelled when I was a teenager and getting up to much naughtiness on them. And don’t assume that manufacturers research your preferences because they want to satisfy them; it’s as often done to understand them as a precursor to manipulating them.
But please don’t take this as anti-capitalist polemic :) I’d actually prefer (heh) laissez-faire capitalism to our current mixed market. But I’d prefer it warts and all, and if you don’t think scientific treatment of preferences is one of those warts (or sometimes beauty spots), you’re probably being played more easily than those who do.
Edited to add: and sometimes it works the other way around, when aggregate preferences reveal truth. I recall - but annoyingly can’t now find - a study that demonstrated cross cultural preferences for certain types of landscape beauty that implied their suitability for habitation by primitive humans. That is, our preferences for beautiful landscapes may be a consequence of our recent evolution.
OK, please point me to any source why I would prefer Coke over Pepsi? Apparently both companies did an excessive amount of research how to win me over?
Tongue in cheek aside, maybe I was overly terse and other have said it better. But sometimes I’d just prefer my new car to be blue and not red, even if there was a measurable advantage - I just don’t like the color.
Same with MX Blues. You might be able to persuade me that I could type 20% faster. Unless I was entering in a speed-typing contest I’d still stick to the other ones for work and leisure.
I think the main problem is that people who want to scientifically quantify things sometimes just overlook people’s priorities. For decades I simply chose my CPU vendor for 2 criteria: speed vs price and “are there known problems with the platform/chipset” - nothing else mattered. Coming to mainboards it was already some sort of “does it have the correct features?” and just like that all scientific things went off the board.
Good point about the market only providing a certain subset of things to have preferences for. But I am not sure this is the correct discussion, it just limits certain criteria to the most mainstream methods. I.e. the “perfect” version of something is either too expensive or has some other drawback that it won’t even be on the normal market, so we consumers have to adjust our preferences to what is available. But I think that brings it out of scope. I honestly do not care about a scientifically better keyboard switch if I can’t buy it. And then I’d still need to like it ;)
Sure:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/subliminal/201205/why-people-choose-coke-over-pepsi
Yes, agreed. There are a couple of drivers for this; it’s easier to deal with people in the aggregate when looking at stats, and also, people buy into the idea of intrinsic value (which is itself a philosophical error). It’s never valid to ask “is X valuable” only “for whom is X valuable, and for what purpose?”
I thought this was very interesting. I’m a latecomer to modern mechanical keyboards, but I grew up with a buckling spring keyboard, learned to type properly on an IBM Selectric II, and had a buckling spring keyboard in the early 1990s. When I finally got a mechanical keyboard last year, I selected Cherry MX Brown (the keyboard I wanted had choice of brown, red, or blue), on the basis that it’s supposed to be tactile but quiet.
That didn’t exactly work out for me. The tactile ‘bump’ on this switch is almost too light for me to feel, and it’s certainly too light to keep me from bottoming out the keystroke. So I still type loudly, it’s just the key rather than the switch. I still like it better than my previous membrane keyboard, but it is far from what I was expecting. And the graphs on this article explain why. I do a little better with blues, but what I really want is a non-clicky keyboard with the feedback of a buckling spring. I guess that’s either technically difficult, or there’s no market for it.