It's nearly impossible to determine whether or not someone is expressing a concern in good faith, so what ends up happening is people getting silenced for diverting even slightly from the dominant narrative because nobody is ever given the benefit of the doubt.
Not saying this is what you're doing, but I find requiring someone to solve a problem immediately after sharing it can (ironically) stifle finding a solution. The act of identifying and the act of solving rarely happen all in one motion, and often the first step to solving a problem is to establish its validity among peers so meaningful solutions can arise.
Tangent to this: I think it's often useful to allow suggesting "bad" solutions to vague problems because good solutions often hang out close to the bad one's and shines interesting light on the problem. Or bad solutions often immediately provokes better ideas. If you immediately see that a proposed solution is bad there's a good chance you know what specifically is bad about it and can propose an amendment.
Suggesting a bad solution is sometimes half the way to a good one.
Arranged like a Skinner box -- something which dispenses reward stimuli for desired behaviours with the aim of maximizing those behaviours.
Interestingly, a Skinner box can be made to dispense rewards randomly after a while, or stop dispensing them entirely -- but the desired behaviour is likely to continue. Think doomscrolling, slot machines, loot boxes, dating apps, etc.
And as a follow-up, Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization.
Where McLuhan argues technologies shape worldviews, Mumford argues worldviews also shape technologies.
And then perhaps into the world of science and technology studies (STS), where these questions are explored more deeply, and specific cases are examined.
Unless you're reading at the top of the screen (i.e. on a phone), scroll up to recap on something you missed, and then the header slides in and covers the exact thing you were trying to read.
Bonus points if the header is absolutely massive and takes up a full fifth of the innerHeight.
The previous commented made an on-target point about how polls can often be manipulated to produce contrived results. I've seen plenty of cases that corroborate this: differently constructed polls showing wildly different breakdowns of opinion on the same issues among the same population, surveys full of obviously leading and loaded questions, etc.
So given all of that, I think the burden of proof is properly the other way around. Why do you think this particular poll is reliable?
They're really using every tactic they can -- and for the life of me, I have no idea why. They've pushed so hard, for so long, to make Bing succeed -- even forcing it in the Start menu -- and it's still not owning the search space.
In my opinion, they'd be much more effective if they just killed the Bing brand, killed Bing rewards, killed the Bing newsfeeds, rebranded it to "Private Search" at privatesearch.com, and called it a day. Yes, people have memories shorter than a goldfish.
Agreed that the Bing brand has to go, but I think they should use their normal naming schemes, something like "Microsoft Azure Cloud Search Pro 2025 SP1"
