Hi there,

Big companies are spending big money on allowing consumers to control everything from their TV, smart speakers, lights, microwaves, etc with voice commands. But do people really want that?

I'm curious because I very much do NOT want to interact with computers vocally. I find it's slow and prone to error, not unlike writing out long passages on a smartphone. It functions, but it's not a great experience and remains a novelty for me.

Bought both kids Echo Dots which is a smart speaker with Amazon's Alexa assistant. It's cool, really innovative. But after a couple weeks both remain unplugged in my kids' rooms - totally lost interest. The only person who I've seen really use a voice speaker is an elderly gentlemen for whom it was the easiest way to interact with a computer (using it specifically to play music and get news).

My friend swears that teens commonly use Siri on their phones to look up information. I can only think of one person I've seen actively use the voice controls and that was an older woman who wanted show her friends how Siri could "rap."

So I was curious how many of you find yourself frequently interacting with computers via voice commands. I personally feel very awkward and self-aware and get easily frustrated because it reminds me so much of the terrible automated attendants on 800 numbers.

Edit: You all are confirming my suspicions. Anyone under age 25 use the voice commands often? I feel like this is all just the first step in designing AI interfacing

Champions League - Matchweek 1

Europa League - Matchweek 1

English Premier League - Matchweek 6

LaLiga - Matchweek 5

Serie A - Matchweek 5

Bundesliga - Matchweek 4

Ligue 1 - Matchweek 6

We talked about this about a month ago, and it looks like the change is now actually being enabled. The remaining creddits I had have now been converted to "Coins", and the site's updating with interface elements changing over.

Here's the announcement post: https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/9ik900/hey_rchangelog_were_starting_to_roll_out_some_of/

Here's the new page for Reddit Premium: https://new.reddit.com/premium

And the page for Coins: https://new.reddit.com/coins

The interface for giving an award (what used to be "gilding"): https://i.imgur.com/xvExuIn.png

The Platinum and Silver awards don't seem to be enabled yet, but here are the icons for all 3 awards: https://i.imgur.com/m7iUhmB.png

For those who've not heard of it, the scp wiki is a community-based collaborative writing effort based around "anomalous" objects/beings and the efforts of the SCP Foundation to contain them and protect the general public. Users can submit and vote on articles about SCPs, written in the style of research/containment notes. Some popular entries are SCP-173, SCP-87 and SCP-682, alongside a few more abstract and lighter entries.

Anyone want to share some SCP entries they've enjoyed reading? SCP-3515 is the most recent I've read and I'd definitely recommend it.

If so, what were your previous beliefs, what did they evolve to, and what do you think has caused the change?

I am curious about your general disposition, but it would also be interesting to hear how that applies to specific policies.

So I've spent nearly the entire weekend watching Humans and I wanted to share what I think of it and maybe get some discussion going.

For those who are not familiar with it, the basic premise is an alternate reality present day where "synths" - robots that replaced humans in most menial tasks - are part of everyday life to the point of being a common household item. Within the first episode we learn that there are a handful of synths that are sentient - thinking, feeling individuals. The show explores the implications of that - how previously-servile machines becoming sentient would impact society. There are many parallels to contemporary issues around racism, xenophobia, fear, and I think the show does good job of handling the topic. It is a smart, well-written sci-fi drama.

So, did anyone else here watch it? What do you think of it?

PS: While the post itself doesn't have any spoilers, the comments do.

I don't put a ton of stock in rateyourmusic's numbers, but I do think it's fun to check in every once in a while to see how my tastes line up with the votes from the userbase. Occasionally I'll find an album I love that, for whatever reason, has a particularly low score.

For example, I was listening to Something to Die For by The Sounds and was surprised to see that it has a 2.88 rating. I love pretty much all of The Sounds' output, and everything else of theirs was well-received by the site. This album, however, was not.

The same goes for Glasvegas's Euphoric Heartbreak which sits at 2.93. Granted, the title is terrible (it has unnecessary slashes that I couldn't figure out how to format right), and it strays from their debut, but I still thoroughly enjoy it.

What are some of your low-rated favorites?

EDIT: If you've never used rym, you can search for any artist in the search field on the top right. That will pull up a list of all artists with that name (or a similar name). Select your desired artist from the list and you'll be taken to their discography page which will show the average rating for each release, as well as the number of ratings and reviews.

Could we have a feature where similar posts can be linked/tagged and showup somewhere obvious, so you can access both posts from each other, linking the two. Something anyone visiting the topic can do.

So there is a link from post A to B but also B to A. You then kind of get a chain of relevant posts, like a further reading list. Maybe only showing topics that are two-three links deep, idk that's just details.

I really like the way r/AskHistorians does it where because of the moderation it's always very easy to find the comment that links previous discussion, but again that solution is not reversible, from the linked topics I can't get to the current topic.

It encourages people to look over previous posts and engage in those discussions, and to participate in a larger discussion across the site. Potentially with one topic link you can get 4-5 other topics.

It should help with answering frequent questions or concerns as it's easy to connect relevant discussion. But also pretty much any other discussion, say nuclear energy is discussed extensively here, and follow the links to the other places people have discussed it, give readers the site context for a topic, and a convenient way to look for further discussion.

I mostly see it being used by a poster who has already answered a question in a previous post and will link the reply in a comment, but this way it's far more accessible to anyone viewing the topic and not lost in the comments. Or maybe someone was interested enough to look further themselves and I've got to believe they would feel generous enough to bother linking the two topics they spent time looking for. Making it just more convenient for everyone.

Take for example this foss topic, I posted basically a follow-up topic about specific foss software.

So a comment can be posted linking the relevant topic but that can easily get lost in the fray and does nothing to link the original topic to the new one. Yeah if someone was really interested they could search the foss tag and easily find it but it's much more convenient with it linked and only one person needs to go through the process of searching.

I kind of like the idea but can see how it's very similar to the tag system and groups. In practice though I just use tags and groups to filter out stuff I don't want to see and sometimes to help with searching.
This would be a feature that focuses to continuing the discussion, and making it more convenient to do so.

Original article in 'The Telegraph': Western Christianity isn't dying out from natural causes. It's dying of suicide.

Same article syndicated in 'The Age': Why Western Christianity has a death wish. (in case the paywall on the Telegraph article blocks you)