public static String convertBytes(long bytes) {
        String[] suffixes = {"B", "KB", "MB", "GB", "TB", "PB", "EB", "ZB", "YB"};
        if (bytes < 1024) return bytes + " " + suffixes[0];
        int exp = (int) (Math.log(bytes) / Math.log(1024));
        return String.format("%.2f %s", bytes / Math.pow(1024, exp), suffixes[exp]);
    }

Let's say I want to change a setting that uses a traditional radio button UI:

- Autoscale servers - Manual scale servers

It's much easier to discover, understand the options, and make a decision via a radio button UI than to ask for my options via chat. That would look like:

"I'm having load issues on my servers. Can you increase the server capacity?" "Sure! Do you want to autoscale or manual scale?" "What's the difference? Are those the only two options or are there more?" "There are only these 2 options. The difference is..."

That's just a worse UX.

There are great examples of this in Westworld and The Expanse, with characters talking to screens to update and refine their queries.

So are touchscreens, especially in cars. Physical buttons are far better for the end user.

Imagine a future when all people know is blah blah to use computers, can't type, never see buttons, and barely read any more.

Now is it a bad UX?

(Before the Internet, the majority of people rarely read. And even now, most people don't read, they tiktok, they youtube.)

The Ford Mustang, not the E, an ICE car, 2024, has 4? touchscreen clicks, to adjust the defrost.

There is no physical button for this.

Many new cars are this way now.

I think a web that is half identified and half anonymous would work well.

https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans

(Don't say transistors, because you know these are completely unrelated and mere coincidence)

https://youtu.be/469chceiiUQ

People's responsibilities change but their cute name does not. But you might not know everyone's cute name, and you want to know who to talk to when something was sold that can't be fulfilled. So you look up Head of Sales in the org chart.

Perhaps having two names is what is needed as in organization charts.

Yes it has flaws, but early adopters will put up with it, and future iterations will be much better. I think we need to ask ourselves whether, if some things improved, this is a good idea.

And I like it.