> You’re still making introversion out to be something that you should work at to compensate or fix
Not fix. You just to hold your nose and do anyway, with no expectations if your experience of it ever changing.
Compensate? Not the way I think you mean it, no. Say you hate exercising or brushing your teeth. Ok. Nothing wrong with that. That's not good or bad. But you still have to do it.
Now, am I saying that only the social interaction with random strangers, that only inane smalltalk does it? Of course not.
> You do it because if you don't, then you'll be worse off years later.
This feels hyperbolic. While I would agree that community and remaining connected are very important to overall health, I don’t feel like making a habit of talking to strangers is a prerequisite.
I'm "on the spectrum." In my case, it has been a net positive, because it afforded me the career that I have, but it has made interpersonal relationships difficult.
I have also spent my entire adult life, in a community that forces us to have fairly intimate interpersonal relationships (a program of personal Recovery).
It has been exhausting (you'll always find me in the kitchen at parties), but it has also been seriously therapeutic.
These days, it's almost unnoticeable. Definitely still there (ask my wife), but most folks never have a clue.
You might not be interested in knitting, but if you keep a pair of needles around and practice a few stitches regularly, you will gain the necessary skill to do any knitting that you do find interesting. Humans are knitting animals.
for me the key difference is who initiates the conversation. i never do, unless i have to. but i want to talk to people, so my approach is to put myself into situations where they want to talk to me. the next issue is that sometimes the conversation is boring. that's stressful, but i have more control here because i can try to change the topic. i already know that this person wants to talk, so now it's my turn to probe and find out if they want to talk about something that i find interesting. it helps to have a wide range of interests, and for me the main problem is meaningless smalltalk, but anything deeper that is of interest to the other person is ok again. i act like i am amateur anthropologist. tell me something about yourself...
I used a discount buyer's agent and it worked great! We viewed houses on the internet ourselves, went to open houses ourselves, and arranged showings with seller's agents ourselves. Once we had it narrowed down to two houses, we brought our buyer's agent to look at both houses, offer suggestions, and do all the bidding and purchase paperwork.
The realtor cartel still enforced a 6% commission, with half to the seller's agent and half to the buyer's agent. Our contract with the buyer's agent refunded half of his commission to us. So basically we got a 1.5% home discount. Our buyer's agent still made 1.5% but didn't have to babysit us while traipsing through dozens of potential homes, so it feels like everyone wins.
Yeah even our best realtor, who I actually liked and thought he did a good job (see other comment here) spent probably 1/3 of his total time on our purchase just hanging out or also walking around an open house. Such a waste IMO.
> All three bidders waived inspection and appraisal, and they all had healthy financing
> I was transacting in a thriving market, with no special circumstances
Yeah, a hot real estate market is where a seller is likely to derive the least benefit. Although a talented agent in a hot market can drive a more competitive process, potentially generating higher offers. All of which is, to the author's credit, highlighted in the article.
Agents earn their keep in more normal/weak markets.
YMMV. When we sold in 2021, our realtor connected us with an interest-free lender who put up $76K for repairs and staging. This, and other services, made the difference between our selling for $1.8M and the $2.4M we got. Maybe we could someday get similar service from a realty AI, but in our recent experience, the humans made all the difference.
Realtors are experts in the market. A good realtor pays for themselves by getting you the best selling price or finding the best home for your price range. If you don't understand opportunity cost, then obviously it appears to be a ripoff. But once you understand, it's clear that realtors have value. And realtors are probably going to be the last to be replaced with AI. It's all about value judgement and AI is garbage at judgement.
Also, it's true this article isn't recognizing the root cause, overpriced housing, because realtors in general do better when prices are high. But "realtors in general" is a very different category than "your realtor".
Realtors are indeed market experts (not product experts). Commission pay incentivizes them to close deals quickly, not to maximize sale price. Yes they can educate first time buyers that they cannot simultaneously get the best location, condition of the house, and price. Good realtors will ask their customer which two (or sometimes one) are their real priority and realistically match them to available listings. If you're moving into an area they can provide some local information although they legally cannot comment on schools or crime. If you've done this before, realtors mainly just serve as gatekeepers to a cartel and literally unlock houses for you to view.
Which for probably 70-80% of people, especially young couple with or considering children, are the top two things they care about if not the only two things.
I would disagree. Theres enough information readily available to be able to see what relative home values are, where the good school districts are, etc.
The only reason I’ve ever used a realtor is because I don’t have the time to deal with the contract/legal side of everything. Most would be better served by hiring an attorney and title company if your state allows.
But there is an adverse selection problem. Some realtors are experts in the market. Buyers or sellers have few ways to identify them accurately. Most of those ways amount to they themselves having good knowledge of the market.
It's the same problem as picking active fund managers.
The decade of zirp between like 2013 and 2021 created a lot of shitty realtors because anyone with a pulse could sell or buy a house with ease. The true value of realtors is in bad economic conditions where serious work is needed to market and negotiate.
As great as the spirit of this article is, it only offers problems without solutions.
I’d love to see example of “bad” solutions made “good”.
As a result, I feel like solving this problem is easier said than done. I can’t think of a great way to solve many of the problems presented here. (Admittedly, I’m not a UX designer, so the bar is low for me.)
This reminds me of a lesser known and underrated game on the GameCube, Pac-Man Vs. (designed by Miyamoto). [1]
It worked by having one player use a GameBoy Advance (connected to the GameCube with an adapter) to (privately) operate Pac-Man while the other three players use GameCube controllers to operate ghosts from the TV.
Additionally, to give Pac-Man a better shot at winning, the three ghosts play from a third-person 3D perspective, rather than top-down.
The ghost that caught Pac-Man would get to take over as Pac-Man (which would inevitably result in a tangled mess of cords by the end).
It was a great couch 3v1 game.
The WiiU had similar mini-games in Nintendo Land [2], with one player operating the Wii U gamepad, while the others played from the TV.
Funny how perhaps "localized" this might be? Grew up an only child but now I have 2 kids, and "couch multiplayer" is now perhaps the majority of my game time.
This is where Steam shines;e.g. Speedrunners, Boomerang Fu, and the very deceptively deep Bopl Battle. Co-op too. Not a huge fan of the cooking games, but Bish Bash Bots is a fantastic co-op tower defense game.
I came to mention the same game. I have many fond memories of playing co-op games on the Gamecube with my cousins back in the day (Mario Party, Shrek 2, Lego Star Wars… Pac-Man Fever). But Pac-Man Vs. was possibly my favorite. It had the novelty factor because of the Gameboy link, but it doesn’t feel gimmicky or cheap - it makes a classic game better in such an elegantly simple way.
TIL my favorite Namco game was designed by Miyamato lol. I wonder if the Gameboy link was sort of a pilot program or a seed of the concept of the Wii U. I always wanted to try the Wii U but it never really had a “killer app” and I think the were very few games that took advantage of the gamepad.
It’s a shame that we’ll probably never get a unique console like that again since it was a huge financial failure that almost ruined Nintendo.
Yup - I mentioned it in an earlier comment [1], came out all the way back in 2003.
If you like this kind of "players become hero" mechanic - highly recommend checking out Crawl [2] - a local multiplayer dungeon crawler where the other players possess the monsters, and if you manage to kill the hero, you become the new hero.
That era is not over. My kids and their friends and us parents play a lot of couch Nintendo games on the Switch. Mario Kart, Mario Party, Overcooked, Lego Party, Super Smash Bros. There's a multiplayer mode in Super Mario World 3D and Super Mario: Wonder.
It's only two player but my older son and I are working on Lego Voyagers. I'd like to play It Takes Two and Split Fiction with my spouse.
I do like the idea of the asymmetric multiplayer games but I am not aware of any that work with the Switch. They might be out there though.
It's a past that's readily accessible in the present and has carved out a niche in the gaming scene. Is that really "past"?
I fully intend to delay my kids' introduction to online play in favor of in person multiplayer as long as possible. I have had up to four 6-8 year olds playing Minecraft together on the LAN on my kitchen table already.
It's part and parcel of my whole "good screen time vs bad screen time" beliefs.
Oh, my kids are older now (18 and 21), but when they were younger, we definitely did plenty of LAN-party games like Minecraft, StarCraft (1 and 2), Terraria, Torchlight, and (when they were older) TFC (which we had some hilarious times playing with/against some terrible bots).
My gripe isn’t so much about what we can do, but just the fact that nobody cares as much about it these days (it’s not mainstream and most devs don’t think about it).
So while I agree the era may not be over, it’s mostly forgotten in favor of remote play without needing to be colocated.
I flagged it because it looked like a low-effort vibe-coded cash-grab app that doesn’t do anything novel that Pages doesn’t, and the submitter has zero other history (reinforcing it’s a cash-grab).
The OP not responding to any of the claims also reinforces this.
This is true, to an extent, but one missing variable is peers, and the — sometimes outsized — influence they have relative to parents.
Some parents limit screen time and delay giving their children phones, but if their peers all have phones and spend much of their time on screens, the parents’ influence may lose out.
In your example, if the friends that came over pulled out their phones and spent most of their time on the phones, the others would eventually follow suit.
And, of course, the reverse is often true — if friends are sitting around talking/interacting, it can sometimes get the others off their screens.
But I’ve also seen many cases, unfortunately, where this wasn’t the case — even though many are interacting, they’ll still keep their face in their screen.
Peer groups sort themselves to an extent. It's never everyone that does X or is into Y.
I recall being immediately out when one of the boys asked which football team I support, to which I replied "none". So I got sorted to the much smaller group of kids who are not into that and we had our own common interests to bond over.
Looking at my daughter's social circle it starts as early as in preschool.
> A “friend request” mechanism is one way of achieving this.
But then you’re left dealing with spam “friend requests”, which is still something I have to take action on, filter out, or ignore — same as spam email.
Having a trustworthy inbox that contains only legitimate email and a separate friend request queue where you can decide “do I know this person / organisation?” is far better than having a single inbox that’s a vast ocean of emails of unknown provenance you have to make a trust decision for for every single email.
You can do this with email today. Heck, you could do it in 2001, I remember. Hotmail's "exclusive" spam filter policy where anything not from your contacts goes to spam, where you can decide if you want to add them as a contact or not.
That doesn’t work because it relies upon the receiver adding all the possible variations of the sending email address to their address book ahead of time.
> Yet all car safety regulation on the 59% that are
I don’t think you meant literally “all”, but one that comes to mind that definitely is intended for pedestrian safety is around requiring that EVs make audible noises when they’re moving at slow speeds (the fake humming as they move forward, and the beeping as they reverse).
This is one of the things I really like about driving a minivan. Excellent visibility compared to just about any other vehicle, including sedans. A combination of higher sitting position with larger windows and sloping hood really opens up sight lines. My son has a Mazda 2 and I hate driving that thing. Feels like the columns and ride height really kills visibility.
100%. I have a Mazda cx-5. Visibility sucks looking left & right because the A frame is so thick.
My thought: demand a certain level of visibility from car manufacturers, and they can figure out how to design around it. Like, I must be able to look left and see the pedestrian 3 feet away from walking into my car. Blind spots like that in the front are ridiculous
How often do you come across kids sitting on the ground in a parking lot? If they want to make a point about visibility at least have them standing up.
Yup, and I still don't know how she was able to do that, knowing that he was there. If you know that you can't see well out of your vehicle, make sure the kids aren't anywhere near it when you're driving. Hell, when my kids were young, they weren't even allowed to be outside on the same side of the house that I was mowing.
Not sure if you have kids but it's pretty terrifying to navigate through parking lots with toddlers. It's the most stressful part of my day, honestly. And yet what choice do I have in the US but to put up with it? Safer city planning is pretty much banned except for the most expensive places in the US.
However I think your EV examples shows an important attitude about what types of vehicles can be regulated. EVs are fair game for regulation, oversize trucks and SUVs are not. That's an attitude not based on safety, but on societal priorities.
This two-class system extends even beyond safety regulations, into emissions regulations too. Trucks and oversize SUVs get a free-ride out of everybody else in society.
You’re still making introversion out to be something that you should work at to compensate or fix, because not doing so would be unhealthy.
E.g. you exercise because if you don’t, you risk disease, cancer, and a host of other physical issues.
There’s nothing unhealthy about never striking up conversations with strangers.
There are more natural and organic ways to meet and interact with people you don’t know (many have been covered in other comments).
But striking up conversations with random strangers in public shouldn’t be equated with exercise.
reply