Not exactly; as mentioned in the About section, the database I'm using is actually Discogs: http://discogs.com/. YouTube is only used as a source of music.
You can enable WebGL in Safari. Go to Preferences -> Advanced and click "Show Develop menu in menubar". "Enable WebGL" is the last item in the Develop menu.
There has been a very obvious Chrome|Safari|Webkit only trend recently, usually for either demos/pocs, but also often for MVP/betas (I believe Mega may have been one of those).
Is it unreasonable? I'd recommend Hover too, and also would have used my affiliate link. If I didn't have one I'd still happily recommend them, but if it doesn't cost you anything why shouldn't I get a cut? That's kind of the point of affiliate codes.
You and I may know that, as may the rest of the HN community, but it shouldn't stop us from trying to protect our friends and family who use Facebook unawares to these practices.
I know I don't want my mother thinking I liked a post about "2 Girls 1 Cup" – and my recourse shouldn't be to completely delete my Facebook account.
Given Facebook's behaviour and CEO, your recourse should be to completely delete your account. Facebook will not change their deceptive and manipulative behaviour because they need to do these things to make money, in fact they need to do a lot more of this sort of thing to justify their current stock price. If you stay on FB your likes, comments, images from your life, and your name will be used to endorse third party advertising without your explicit consent, and sometimes that's going to be products you don't agree with, particularly if you 'like' a magazine or similar which has many advertisers. The FB terms allow this, and they have shown what they think of user privacy.
Yes, the OP is specifically referring to "Sponsored Stories" – the concern and alarm is raised because the user has no way of knowing what stories are being attached to their name, or even that its happening at all.
As for your later point, your assumption that all users know these posts are advertisement and that users understand their friend didn't really like a post about 2 Girls 1 Cup – is patently false based on OP's own personal experience. His mother saw a Sponsored Story by VICE about "Penis Waffles" that had his name attached to it. When she saw the post, it looked to her as if he had liked the story/post and urged him to take it down.
You've unfortunately missed the point. The "Johnny Wonny" user never 'liked' the article/post about 2 Girls 1 Cup. He merely like the VICE page. Facebook is now deciding to show the post to all his friends with his name attached, without any mention to Johnny in any form.
The post from OP stemmed from such an "unsophisticated viewer," namely: his mother; she thought that he had liked an article about "Penis Waffles" that VICE posted some months ago, and she urged him to take the post down due to its vulgar nature.
Of course, he couldn't take the post down, and had no way of even KNOWING the post was being shown to his friends and family.
The point the OP is trying to make is not the liking of VICE – the "Johnny Wonny" account legitimately liked VICE, but did not like the POST that VICE chose to "sponsor" and show to other users as if he had liked it. It becomes disingenuous when Facebook doesn't inform the user that they are posting a specific article/post on the users behalf, to all his friends.
It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the person liked just the brand, and that the brand is just advertising a post below the like. I would think it would say "Johnny Wonny liked VICE's post" if the user liked the post.
Correct, but this isn't obvious to everyone. This UI design seems purposefully chosen by Facebook to look as if the user has liked the post as well as the brand page.
These kinds of things can be life or death in airplanes.
It used to be in the Air Force that full throttle was called "takeoff power". Then one day a jet was making a landing, and the copilot decided they needed to abort. The first thing you do on abort is go to full power, so he yelled "takeoff power". The pilot chopped the throttle, thinking he meant "take off power", causing an accident.
The offical phrase for full throttle was then changed to "full power" (or "maximum power", I forgot).
I don't think that's the case. It's very possible to be a good programmer and care deeply about your work, but at the same time be a terrible UX designer. Unfortunately a lot of software companies don't realize this and give UX the priority it deserves; instead they make their coders guess about it, which leads to things like this dialog.
Oh sure, I'm a living disaster area at UX. I meant more that whoever is the "designated responsible individual" (if one even exists -- doubtful) has given the fuck up.
For some reason I didn’t read “the fuck” as emphasis, but as a direct object—the person had had a fuck previously, but have since given up that fuck.
I’m going to use that as an example of why UX is hard: not only are people generally not paying attention, but sometimes they misfire even when they are.
or even that the message makes perfet sense to the person writing it, because they are not reading the message, but reading what they thought the message was in their head!
and he simply missed the unfortunate dialog box that resulted in one of those cases. An oversight, but when the subtitles of the user presentation is so decoupled from the code it can be easy to miss.
I actually prefer the idea of using "Don't" instead of "Cancel." When combined with always using a verb instead of "Yes" or "OK", I think it makes for completely unambiguous dialog.
Not completely unambiguous, though. I've seen plenty of software with negations in their dialog messages ("Don't delete x?") Particularly egregious with driver installations. Everything considered, buttons with actual verbs seem the most foolproof.
State of California used to allow 5 in healthcare reporting: male, female, indeterminate, unknown, and other.
The first two are largely self-explanatory, self-identification issues largely not considered. "Indeterminate" means that evidence is present but it's not possible to distinguish. "Unknown" means evidence isn't present (and hence it's not possible to make a determination. Example: unidentified human remains found and either grossly mutilated or partial to the point of not being able to determine sex. "Other" means that evidence is present, and it's possible to make a determination, but it doesn't fit any of the previous categories.
My absolute favorite on this one is a dialog that pops up if an assertion fails in a .NET program. It has three buttons whose names have a distinguished provenance: Abort, Retry, Ignore.
Those names don't exactly describe what the buttons do. Fortunately, though, someone at Microsoft noticed the problem and fixed it. So now the title bar reads, "Assertion Failed: Abort=Quit, Retry=Debug, Ignore=Continue"
