"Will the AI be smart enough to realize the unnecessary bits, or are you just going to layer increasingly more levels of crap on top? My bet is it's mostly the latter, for quite a long time."
Dev cycles will feel no different to anyone working on a legacy product, in that case.
My experience with Reddit ads (years ago now) wasn't that subreddit-level targeting was bad—there's a reason sponsored content is such a big marketing channel, after all—but rather that the ads platform just never worked very well.
And by "never worked very well," I don't just mean "We ran ads without good results." The whole experience was just sort of confusing and underwhelming, especially when compared to other channels like FB or Google. We suspected that the majority of our clicks were bots, based on our own analytics. The targeting always felt unreliable. Support interactions were weird. In general, the platform always just felt kind of... janky.
Don't know if that's still the case now, but at least as of a year or so ago, I knew a lot of people working in digital marketing who felt the same about the platform.
So the targeting wasn't just you choosing to run ads on /r/coffee and /r/programming? In my head the ads should be so easy to sell with how niche it is. But I also believe reddit could screw it up.
Yeah, the only times I've heard people talk about having to pay for using the minibar it one of two stories, either; 'I was drunk and just wanted something to snack on' or 'I left my kids unattended in the room for a half hour'.
This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing".
If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.
Hacker News is a largely technical community. If there was any community that would respond to your product being open source, interoperable, or written in a niche language, this would be it.
There were and are plenty of scientists critical of the CDC. Immediately after officials lied about masks being ineffective, prominent scientists voiced harsh criticisms. They were not harangued for being anti-science or conspiracy theorists.
On the other hand, people who fundamentally did not grasp what mRNA is, or who believed that COVID caused no more deaths than a flu, or who touted "medicines" that had no demonstrated efficacy—they were deservedly criticized. Unfortunately, the criticism wasn't enough to prevent many of them from making quite a bit of money peddling their beliefs.
>They were not harangued for being anti-science or conspiracy theorists.
This is not the least bit true.
There was a PBS interview with one of the scientists on President Biden's Covid advisory council who spoke up about how disappointed he was with his colleagues in public health who would not speak out against the mob on the efficacy of cloth face masks to protect against an airborne virus.
The problem here is that CDC did not want to acknowledge they might be wrong. Even a slight suggestion asking that we concduct a study (at least parse data from Californa and Florida) is considered as “conspiracy”.
we need to get humble scientists: the ones which do science with the goal to find the truth but not one which just want to be right and have too much pride admitting wrong.
No, using engines to find lines is a common way to practice (at least, that's my understanding. Obviously, I'm not personally a world class chess player.)
Win 95 was a toy, NT was getting there. Apps were being ported quickly to NT4.
I do remember using Maya on Irix in '97 or so and it was already pretty amazing. It was built off earlier applications like power animimator, which was started in '88:
Excel is quite complex, but the Excel of 2022 is far more complex than the Excel of 1995, and part of it exists on the web itself, so Excel '22 would be an invalidation of your argument that '95 apps were more complex (as well as other modern versions of the other apps).
One major difference in 1995 applications is that almost none of them were collaborative or synced with a remote server. They were all isolated applications that worked entirely in a local context. They could be programmed to a single target platform on perhaps one to three screen resolutions (640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768). They could all work under the assumption that one style of input was being used (mouse and/or keyboard). They all could use simple built-in dropdown context menus. They could all render to a canvas context graphics with much of the heavy lifting assumed by the operating system itself.
We certainly had network programming in the 90s. It was just that apps didn't use it unless needed. SGI res was typically 1280x1024 and Wacom tablets were common in studio/professional settings.
Apps didn't use it because it wasn't practical or in high demand yet. People were just getting used to checking email and most people were only intermittently online via dial up. Collaborative apps would take another 8 or 9 years to really start to take off.
We had T-1 internet to every desk in ‘94 and I used dozens of networking apps from archie to veronica. Probably used CU SeeMe before a browser. Though Mosaic dropped around that time.
Advanced collaboration still in the future, this era was more like chat and file transfer. I think you could mark up Word docs from a network drive at some point.
I appreciate your experience here. If you're interested, I'd highly recommend looking into Portugal's results in decriminalizing drugs (coinciding with an enormous reduction in opioid overdoses): https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/portugal-opioid
I'd also recommending looking into the UK's previous method of treating opioid addiction, commonly referred to as "The British system." Vice is hardly an unbiased source, but they serve as a good entry point on this topic imo: https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw4nnk/how-the-us-stopped-a-...
It's important to note that the systems people hold up as evidence of decriminalization's success are rarely "solely" down to decriminalization. Typically, they involve a broader "substance-abuse-as-public-health-crisis" approach. However, decriminalization is essential for such an approach to work.
Dev cycles will feel no different to anyone working on a legacy product, in that case.