Absolutely agree! Also while this could very easily have been built as a phone app, scanning barcodes, voicing out groceries would first require the user to start up the app a first step. Its almost like Google Ware as dedicated hardware for Google Now!
The new bunch of travel websites has not attempted to create a human process flow to help travelers plan holidays. The approach so far has been mostly transactional e.g., offer information on individual questions vs. tackle the whole trip (mentioned in the article as well).Those who did not start off doing so have sadly shifted to aforementioned model going to the extreme of posting hotel options on the first city page. Revenue pressure, I understand, but no one is really looking for hotels before they decide where they would like to go.
Want to tell you about WanderShip. Something we've been working on for some time now. We've designed it to be the most human flow for planning a trip. And yes it tackles the whole trip, and not only answer individual questions.
As for personalization, no one, not even a travel agent, will recommend restaurants or hotels as well as a friend who knows you for a long time. So WanderShip is not completely human, but probably does as well as a travel agent.
Expanding on: "Meritocracies are like democracy: "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.""
Assuming the goal of any system of government (e.g., democracy) or marketplace (e.g., meritocracy for society, opportunity etc.) is the advancement/ progress, a meritocracy fails where the value it attaches to certain events/ attributes is flawed. It rewards something more than it contributes to progress, and insufficiently rewards something that brings greater value.
Bringing it back to the original post, I have often shared the opinion that currently providing entertainment, is rewarded more than it deserves in the current state of our meritocracy. One could contribute more to the advancement of society e.g., by improving energy efficiency but the person would not really be rewarded as disproportionately for doing so.
I find it sad therefore that so many smart people are driven to game development and not solve other more pressing problems. Or probably that society currently attributes so much value to entertainment.
> I find it sad therefore that so many smart people are driven to game development and not solve other more pressing problems. Or probably that society currently attributes so much value to entertainment.
Nobody is driven to game development, it's an individual choice. And your perspective that there are more pressing problems is an illusion. The more pressing problems are from your own point of view. From someone else's, making a living may be their top pressing problem before caring about anything else. And there are people who are genuinely good at making games, and they should keep doing it as long as they can bring good games on the market, because it benefits gamers as well. Gamers don't buy games to throw their time and money away, they do it also because they have fun with it, it stimulates them, makes them excited or relaxed, or in other words make them live in more ways than they would usually live. Not talking about flappy bird here, but there's a number of games that have depth and where you learn stuff by playing that develop your intellect as well.
Entertainment is important, because for most people, daily work is NOT entertaining nor fulfilling.
> How much entertainment does the market really need? For example, so many awesome books have been written already that you don't need any more books, you can live your whole life reading just the best of the best old books and not make a dent. Yet tons of people become writers.
Moot point. You already have had many more books that you could hope to read in a lifetime in the previous centuries - this is nothing new. This is even true for games - it's impossible to play all games that have been created, and this is a much more recent medium.
The reason why books/movies/games keeps getting made is because NEWNESS has usually more value than anything else. You know, every time you go to the movies, that it's very likely that the movie is NOT the best movie you'll have ever seen. Yet, you may be interested to go because it's something NEW, and newness is what drives curiosity (and sales).
So, it's actually very rational. Most readers are more likely to buy the latest ebook from whoever than to pick up Homer out of the blue.
"Nobody is driven to game development, it's an individual choice" > Acknowledge this
"there are more pressing problems is an illusion" > disagree. As some on another comment pointed out that around the world enough and more people do not have access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, energy etc. You could also refer to Maslow's priority of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). Entertainement can't fit anywhere other than right at the top of the pyramid.
And yes, everyone has individual needs and those are the most pressing for them. I was talking more from a society perspective.
> And yes, everyone has individual needs and those are the most pressing for them. I was talking more from a society perspective.
Right, but in a free society you can't impose to people what they should work on. This is a matter of individual freedom, and we should treasure it, no matter what the choices are.
