Yeah, give a date you’ll remember that isn’t related to anything personal to you and yours. Something like April Fools, May the Fourth be with you, etc.

Because it’s working out so well across the pond.

“Good” is in the eye of the beholder. Have you considered that the quality hasn’t changed much, but instead you’ve become more discerning as you age? I certainly have far less tolerance for the stupid shit I used to think was funny long ago.

They’re good for your health,
They’re good for your heart.
The more you eat,
The more you fart!

I hear they call you “Beano.”

Watch out for low-flying brown missiles!

Agreed, and that’s what’s frustrating the shit out of me over where things have been going for several years now.

I’m aware why it happens, but if even you are aware then that means you know what I’ve said is true. As such, it seems you also should know that you’re not designing for the best interface, but just the one that the largest proportion of the masses are able to use well enough to win out over alternatives in a quest for market domination. Dumbed-down wins in the numbers game, but isn’t necessarily the “best” interface.

Another part in the numbers game is cost. As someone reminded me recently, the “best” solutions rarely win over ones that are “good enough,” but cost the end users less. Technology’s history is veritably littered with superior options that lost out against their competition because of such cost differences. This is part of how Android became so dominant over the objectively much easier to use (earlier in, anyway - things have since improved somewhat) iOS. Google included almost everything one might need for free - all you had to pay was your privacy.

I get the gist. I’ll use myself as an example in an attempt to make my point. I hate, Hate, HATE the very reduction of “complication” you’re referring to. Dumbed-down interfaces that contain no “unnecessary information” drive me nuts. What’s unimportant information to you may be important to me.

By all means, design for the “most common use cases,” but the buck stops right there FAR too often anymore. There’s minimal, if any, customizability, alternate layouts that are more information-dense, or just any accommodation for those that didn’t fit that most common use case. It’s dumbing things down for those who don’t want to learn anything, or use their device to it’s fullest capabilities, and those of us who prefer to use our brain just get ignored and have to suffer.

I get the desire to make things approachable for non-technical people, but if that’s all that ever happens then they’ll never learn anything more advanced than that. So our society gets more and more coddled, and incapable of doing things for themselves - making them all the more dependent upon the tech oligarchs, which is, of course, more profitable for them and more power handed over to them.

No thanks.

Yes, as it has been for decades. I also learned some about it back in the early days of the '80s into the '90s. It’s constantly evolving along with the tech (and the capabilities of the current majority of users), so there’s never been much of an absolute set of standards that have withstood the test of time. Again, there are a wide variety of people in the world - all with their own perspectives and ways of doing things. As such, the goal of a universally intuitive interface - while laudable - is a bit of a quixotic pursuit, IMHO. At least until it fully resembles & interacts like real-world objects & beings, anyway.

ETA: They’re more likely eventually going to settle upon a set of standards that is based upon what users have collectively already been forced to learn from using existing interfaces. Once the vast majority of the world’s population is used to and on board with the same way of doing things, that will likely become the “standard” by default. For example, a growing number of people today are only comfortable using their phone, and have never really learned how to use a computer with a similar level of comfort. It will likely remain that way until some new major “paradigm shift” in tech happens (like the shift from PCs to phones) that starts the process anew.

I don’t doubt that, but courses are selected/designed by their teachers - who likely select what fits their pre-existing biases. Virtually nothing humans do comes out without biases affecting things, which is what makes the “reproducibility” of studies such an important part of science - and even those reproductions need to be done numerous times by varying parties for the results to truly start to become trustworthy.

In short: there’s no pleasing everybody, but if you’re going to try then you must allow for differences in views and modus operandi.

Seems a convoluted way of looking at it to me, but i guess it’s just another case of different strokes for different folks.

Did they just make the page look basically the same, but reverse the order? If so, then that’s on them because of shitty UI planning. Making such a drastic change should come with an equally drastic visual layout change to disrupt the automatic mental flow that goes with muscle memory.

“This sucks” were your words - why else would you say that? Your “personal freedom” argument doesn’t hold water if you’re fine with restrictions on other drugs.

The article says they’re restricting under 16s, so I’m not sure what you’re thinking with the end of your second paragraph - which kinda lens credence to my point that teens aren’t known for thinking things through.

Everyone is different, and that includes how they grow and mature. We all know worry-warts, and we all know boisterous jocks who are more likely not to be careful. Of course some will think about it due to who they are, but many others won’t - or erroneously rank other things as more important considerations.

I don’t disagree the justification is flimsy, and as an American I’m not sure why they’re doing that - but I don’t think it’s an entirely misguided approach, either.

It’s not unimportant:

• Teenager dies in classroom of caffeine overdose after downing latte, energy drink and Mountain Dew
• Lethal Lemonade: Energy Drinks Aimed at Young People Linked to Deaths, Cardiac Risks, Lawsuits Allege
• This article talks about even relatively young mature adults dying both in the main story as well as in links to some others further down the article.

Yes, these people overdosed, but teens aren’t exactly known for their self-control or lack of impulsiveness, so they may do similarly - especially given how so many tend to act like they’re almost indestructible thanks to their youth-driven ability to heal more quickly.

There’s nothing keeping kids from drinking multiple caffeine drinks as detailed in the links above, so at least ensuring that the drinks are low in caffeine will hopefully slow the intake enough to minimize the risk.

So let’s sell cigarettes to kids, too. They’re a legal drug, right?

Look, I’m no expert, and I’m not saying caffeine is as bad as cigarettes, but I’m sure neither of us has a full understanding of the brain, or caffeine’s effects upon it. How about admitting you might not know enough to make an informed decision, and let those who do know more work it out?

You’re obviously affected by this personally, and thus biased. You’re blatantly ignoring the fact that few teens have a full understanding of how the human brain works, the chemical interactions involved, or the long-term effects that are possible.

Cigarettes were once actually endorsed by doctors, but we all know better now. I’m not saying this is anywhere near that bad, but that’s because I’m admittedly not anywhere near an expert on this - I know the limitations of my knowledge, and when to defer to someone with more expertise. I would suggest you find the humility to do the same.

They’re not stupid, but their brains aren’t fully developed yet. A huge problem is the fact that the part of the brain that takes into consideration possible consequences for any action one decides to take is one of the last things to fully develop, and that doesn’t happen until roughly age 25. That’s why so many college-age kids do some pretty stupid things at parties and such.

First rule of Fight Club…

Yep - the bottom line is what will get them in the end.