You just say "I want to find some headphones" and it makes you some recommendations. Or it helps you nail down what you're looking for first and then gives you options at various price points. I've found this useful when shopping for cars, computers, tourist activities, and much more.

When selection is personal, you have a smaller set of choices and will respond to how things feel. If you're walking down a street looking at 3 restaurants, a surprising element in one might speak to you in a way you can't even explain. On the other hand, if you're just browsing in maps, you'll be going by ratings that reward a more generic notion of quality. That type of selection is algorithmic rather than personal.

More parts of our lives have been algorithmized than even before, and we generally like this because selecting things is hard. But algorithmization can drive us toward local maxima, where the pleasantness of familiarity draws us away from selecting or creating something truly personal. Of course, it can also draw people into arcane and corrupt niches like conspiracy theories.

The algorithmizations of physical spaces and social connections are probably the newest and most distressing. These realms used to be almost entirely localized; the idea you'd pick your friends or spouse by algorithm used to be rare and is now dominant. But personal relationships are incredibly nuanced and the algorithms are inadequate to the diversity of human desires. Yet they're shaping our desires in a way that is preventing many people from finding their happiness.

For example, without undocumented immigrants, milk would be a lot more expensive (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/magazine/milk-industry-un...). The current election is showing us quite starkly how significant grocery staple prices are in shaping public perception of a nation's economic health.

On the face of it this seems ludicrous. A baby born to a mother living in a high-risk environment but then adopted by a low-risk family would likely do far better in their life than the inverse.

They rarely have actuaries on payroll but there are several boutique actuarial consultant who serve these companies (e.g. "given the geographical distribution of your employees and the higher use of services X, Y, Z, you would save $xxx if you choose insurer A over insurer B").

I'm not saying the surveillance and payment-held-hostage model is the best, but it does at least attempt to provide some useful incentives.

Thoughtfully designed apps tend to set up clear expectations and deliver on them. Thoughtless or malicious apps can be confusing or intentionally mislead.