The main point here is, however, that most sites offer some form of protection against such instances e.g. require to enter email twice. In case of twitter, it is not a big deal because I did not provide them with any sensitive information which I normally would in online shopping, it is just mildly annoying.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
> wojtek: it appears that you missed an important user experience feature
> that would have answered your question. After I reproduced the 'bug' you
> found by mistyping the initial email address, I pulled up twitter.com to
> find this message awaiting me:
> Whoops, we haven't been able to send email to your new address! We've tried
> sending confirmation emails to shag at gmail.orn but they are not getting
> You can <https://twitter.com/settings/account?change_email=true>change to
> a different address or we can <http://twitter.com/#>try again.
> Either they really do care about the user experience and you somehow missed
> the message. Or, after I wrote them to point out the problem, they redballed
> this fix.
> If it's the latter, and they implemented this fix after I wrote, I find it
> an interesting illustration of something you're not quite grasping when you
> claim open source openness is a preferred approach.
> here's why. The reason why open source is ostensibly less buggy (a point
> with which I disagree) is that it supposedly follow the open source dictum
> that _everyone_ participates in the production of software. That includes
> YOU, a user.
> why? Because the philosophy behind this (which has been a fondation of
> agile software dev methodology, which is embraced by proprietary and open
> shops alike) is the following: software is a fucking process. there's no way
> on earth each of the roles involved in software development should work in
> isolation. The business stakeholders, the users, the testers, the
> developers, the product managers, the business analysts should not work in
> isolation from one another. One reason why: because no one ever occupying
> any role can be perfect. A product developer gathering specs for an app
> cann't cover every damn requirement under the sun. A developer can't know
> every damn thing about a business's needs. A business stakeholder may
> totally suck at communicating what she wants. Users may have no idea what
> they want or what really works for them, let alone what's best for the
> As a consequence, an open source model of development emphasizes
> collaboration, right?
> Except, if all you do is hate twitter and bitch at LBO and never find a way
> to tell twitter what the problem is, you'll never help them fix the bug and
> make users happier.
> As others have said about the supposed superiority of open source software:
> there's an assumption that, with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
> There's an assumption, in other words, that creating software is a
> collaboration, that no man is an island, that no software developer is ever
> sprung from the head of zeus, all knowing, omnisciently capable of
> understanding what is best for the majority of users.
> What you seem to want is a development process (and developers) who are
> perfect, all-knowing. Ain't never gonna happen under any system of
> production. hence, open source assumes its users to be part of the process
> of reporting and even fixing bugs. Why? Because the model _assumes_ software
> will be buggy - even when you are not operating under the profit motive.
> [WS:] This is a really interesting insight which kind of dove-tails with
>> perceptions of how business works (not necessarily IT). In a way, it is a
>> product of capitalism.
>> Competition forces companies to adopt technological solutions that
>> or gain market shares. And the fact that their solutions are pieces of
>> does not mater, because consumers can only choose by different types of
>> similar privately produced crap and "public option" is not available.
>> are several consequences of that:
>> 1. Even if a private providers develops or stumbles upon a good solution,
>> that solution may be dumped in favor of marketing gimmicks (of the ipod
>> -schmypod type for example.)
>> 2. Proprietary solutions are not conducive to the accumulation of
>> and building on shared foundations. This lowers the quality of the
>> (i.e. making it more error-prone) while increasing the transaction cost,
>> which is being dumped on the consumer. For example, if I want to use, say
>> Microsoft outlook to synchronize my email, I need to buy the whole line of
>> Microsoft products, the OS, the Office Suite etc.
>> 3. Planned obsolescence is the norm, because it is dictated by the market
>> demand for certain level of profitability and it forces companies to adopt
>> dubious innovations to stay profitable and maintain their market position,
>> instead of building up on the strengths of their past solutions. Again,
>> increases the probability of error and tremendously increases waste, but
>> long as the consumer or the government can be saddled with the cost of
>> waste - this whole topsy-turvy model appears as a paragon of "business
>> In sum, the problem lies not that much with deficient programming skills,
>> but with the fact that these skills often take the back seat to marketing
>> and marketing gimmicks. Who cares if we produce crap as long as that crap
>> sells and the management (and key stockholders) are happy.
>> Eubulides: "Imagine Woj's [great?] grandparents:"
>> [WS:} You missed my point altogether. I am not complaining about
>> technological innovation but the shoddy quality of that innovation that
>> leaves people with even mild disabilities in the dust. In fact I have
>> been quick in adopting new technologies, but I resent the idiotic drive to
>> change things around merely for marketing purposes. It has little to do
>> with new technology and everything to do with capitalism, and it sucks.
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>> > It's all totally fucked up. I had to switch to a new cell phone today &
>> > could not for the life of me figure out how to download a ringtone.
>> > Bach or nothing.) I spent an hour trying to do it on the phone; I spent
>> > hour trying to do it off the web; I called support and they spent a half
>> > hour trying to do it.
>> > Something's wrong with their server I think.
>> > Ugh,
>> > Joanna
>> > ___________________________________
>> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)