We need a new one: "Where someone is using a vibe-coded internal tool made by the creative department that keeps needing bug fixes, there's a start up waiting to happen."
This project is not clever, interesting, insightful, or beneficial to humanity in any way, save to remind us of what world we are slowly creating by our continued insistence that AI is a good thing.
Exactly. People are getting so excited that all this stuff is possible, and forgetting that we are burning through innumerable finite resources just to prove something is possible.
They were too concerned with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should.
I can't believe that in the face of all the other problems facing humanity, we are allowing any amount of resources to be spent on this. I cannot even see this justifiable under the guise of entertainment. It is beneath our human dignity to read this slop, and to continue tolerating these kinds of projects as "innovation" or "pushing the AI frontier" is disingenuous at best, and existentially fatal at worst.
Do they have microphones inside the car? How do you know? That "feeling" of privacy probably encourages people to talk more openly, which if there are microphones inside...
The proof is that humans do it all the time and that you do it inside your head as well. People need to stop with this absurd level of rampant skepticism that makes them doubt their own basic functions.
Companies more likely to want to save money on labor costs (employing many h1bs) are also likely to want to save money on Tooling costs, by using safe options like MSFT stuff, rather than finding better tools.
Also yes, due to availability and various other reasons, H1bs, particularly from India, seem more likely to use a MSFT stack.
Surely this was heavily inspired by Runescape? The click to move (including cursor animation on click), camera angles and graphics, chat text colour and position etc. all give me huge Runescape (Old School Runescape) vibes.
Congrats on launching though, looks like a fun project.
This is why Signal needs to decentralise. There is no such thing as "leaving the EU market" if it can obtained from anywhere on the internet.
The EU has shot itself in the foot with demanding alternate app store exist, and then Signal has shot itself in the foot by not being open enough to be distributed on any app store by anybody.
The answer to these encryption laws, is to use their other laws against them. You want the iPhone to be an open platform? Great, here's a bunch of open platform chat apps that cannot be banned because they are decentralised.
1) Most projectors are not smart, so it solves that problem.
2) You don't have a gaping black hole in your living space urging you to be sucked into watching it. I despise TV and mass media and what it has done to our society. A projector at least hints at film being more of an art form that can be appreciated for its own sake. You have a movie night, you set everything up, you pack it up when done. It's intentional, it's not just "I'm bored, let's scroll through Netflix and find something watchable".
This is bad. This is a whole new level of disinformation. ChatGPT regularly produces wrong information that reads very convincingly. This is prematurely adopting bleeding edge technology just for the positive press it will bring. Microsoft, stop immediately.
> People call Twitter an indispensable public space because it’s the “town square”, but in the real world there isn’t just one town square, because there isn’t just one town. There are many.
The Internet is simply following our current Globalist trend, where yes, there may be different physical towns, but there is only one acceptable way to think about the world, one acceptable form of government, and one acceptable set of morals.
Cities are becoming harder to distinguish since every new building looks the same. The same shops and chains are available. The clothing is the same. These aren't different town squares. These are the global monoculture made manifest. The Internet is simply another small part of this larger trend.
I think software companies should offer both. A subscription gets you access to any version of the software as long as you keep paying. Or you can purchase a particular version.
Unfortunately though, this is very hard to achieve with Web based products, since then they would need to retain copies and host copies of every version. This to me just highlights how Web based software makes ownership harder, and is why I will always preference software I can download and backup and store how I please, etc.
I very consciously did not buy a Kindle when choosing an Ereader about a year ago. The Kobo H2O is incredible and has served me very well. The format support is wonderful, and the stock OS does more than I need (though there is a whole community of custom OSes that also look cool). Combined with Calibre, I don't even see what the Kindle value prop is.
The missing key here in my opinion is subsidiarity. Decentralisation works up to a point, but many decentralised solutions assume that everybody is the entire system must reach a concensus e.g. Blockchain. And that concensus usually involves some kind of "majority rules". Which means that in practice, 49% of people might be left unhappy. That is not the sign of a healthy society.
What we need instead is the follow the principles of subsidiarity [1].
Local level markets, DeFi solutions, governance structures, communication platforms, etc that are capable of enforcing their own rules, but that are interoperable to some degree with other systems.
The Matrix project I think is a great example of this. Unfortunately, it looks like they might be making some bad decisions around global moderation, but in general the idea that local servers can exist with their own rules, but still send and receive content from other servers is great.
We don't want to end up in a future where Big Tech can automatically censor any video you upload, any message you send, or any call you make. This doesn't mean we need the Wild West, it means that you should be participating in a community where you all agree on the rules. And if you want to participate in somebody else's community, you need to follow their rules. This idea that some global all powerful entity can just banhammer somebody for something they said in a community that everybody in the community thought was fine, is totally unacceptable.
I think it's because the commands are poorly named. "Reset" vs. "Revert" tells me nothing about what is happening at the low level, I just have to remember it. And yet the two operations, despite having fairly similar English language meanings, have entirely different meanings in the context of Git.