Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bravetraveler 768 days ago
They explained decently how it was harmful. Cleaning up after it regularly broke things, when given a chance.

To be blunt, it's perfectly reasonable. They didn't even get that proclaimed "one percent!"

How does one even meaningfully measure this? No matter.

In their case, instead of saving time or effort, it was adding. It was a removable cost.

If one really wants to dwell, there's game theory. Could it be made to be effective? Probably. Is it worth it? Don't know.

They told us 'no', we should listen for their situation.

At risk of splitting hairs, I need more than one percent. This isn't a vacuum, I'm not a spherical cow, etc.

Point being: wanting both my money and attention has a high bar of admission. Learning a thing has a cost, becoming dependent, and so on.

I'm well into rambling now, feel free to tune out. I'm not sacrificing autonomy for a pittance. I was fine before I knew about $OFFERING. Truth in advertising is idealistic, at best.

1 comments

But saying it wasn't worth the $10 contradicts a bit with net negative harm. The way they worded it, made it sound like while there was harm, there was some sort of benefit, but it just wasn't worth specifically $10.