[OT] Was: totally satisfied :D

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:24:14 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 06:59:55PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [...]
> > > There is a general assumption by many applications/websites that
> > > *everyone* uses facebook.
> > 
> > I know! And it's not just software, it's all business in general.
> > They noticed that it's popular so they think that means "nearly
> > everyone uses it" when the reality is that even as popular as it
> > is, it's still only a *minority* of internet users. Same with
> > twitter.
> 
> Huh. I must've been living in a cave. Last I heard, facebook must've
> hit 90% market saturation, 'cos *everyone* I know has facebook (or
> pretty close to everyone). I'm not among the 90%, though, and never
> intend to be. :)
> 
> Usually when I run into a website that asks for facebook login, I hit
> ctrl-W by instinct and don't even flinch. When I run into an app that
> asks for facebook login, 99% of the time I just delete it without
> thinking twice.  And it's not just facebook, it's anything that
> *requires* signing up for some kind of social networking site. Making
> it an option is OK, I don't care if other people want to post their
> latest Doodle Jump score to their stream of inanity, all power to
> them, but *requiring* it to use an app that doesn't logically need
> it? Plonk. Nagging me about it after I said no the first time? Plonk.
> 

Maybe I'm the one living in a cave, because I've never come across
anything (besides maybe facebook itself) that actually *requires*
social networking login.

The closest I've seen is Stack Overflow which I don't post to because
it requires OpenPhishing, I mean OpenID.

> 
> [...]
> > > Besides, my wife is on facebook, and if any important news happens
> > > via FB, she'll tell me :)
> > > 
> > 
> > Heh. Similar situation here. My brother and sister are both on it,
> > so I'll catch wind of any family news from FB. My parents, like me,
> > aren't on FB either so they get the same benefit, too, although they
> > usually hear much sooner I do ;)
> 
> Me too. My wife has FB, and that's good enough for me.
> 
> Sad to say, though, I got suckered into signing up for Google+. Every
> now and then (like once a month or less) I post something, but mostly
> I don't even bother logging on. Most of the stuff on it is pretty
> inane anyway. Y'know, your typical "what I ate for breakfast", "how
> many hairs fell into my bathroom sink this morning" and other such
> content-free posts that are a total waste of time to read. There
> *are* times when it's useful, like when you're going abroad and have
> friends who can let you crash in their place for a night or two --
> but generally speaking, the signal-to-noise ratio is very low.
> 

Yea, that's also why I stubbornly refuse to call
my...*ahem*...site with posts and articles, a "blog" (heh, usually I
call it a "not-a-blog"). Because to me, what you've described is what a
*real* "blog" is. Like LiveJournal.