FUN! And who knows, maybe this will lead to something later. Many discoveries or inventions were built on things people didn’t know the use of at the time.

Exactly.

Question can also be interpreted as "why does DNS even allow this" which is fair as it only purpose should be to convert a domain name address into a 32 bit number. The answer is partially in the link on TFA. I guess they had their reasons.

I mean DNS has had different record types for as long as I can remember, txt records in specific allowed the protocol to be extensible without everyone having to update their software to support new record types.

And that also leaves out the common things like MX records.

Because I want my DKIM signatures to be literal signatures.

Why not? This is exactly what hackers and tinkerers do.

Better question: Why not? :)

What he describes existed and didn’t scale comparing to modern social media. It was called LiveJournal.

At the exact same time that Instagram launched, another platform that is also almost exactly what this post describes also launched: Path - and it's long dead, too. The author's views represent such a tiny minority that is not worth the required effort to build and maintain a platform for. Let's not forget network effects. You might love this utopian platform, if it were to exist, but good luck convincing everyone you care about to move over with you. You may as well then just use a journaling app if you're talking to yourself.

The largest social platforms right now are hardly showing any signs of slowdowns. The market signal is clear: this is what most people want and are fine with.

Perhaps a journaling-focused platform where social is a second-class aspect might succeed. You're documenting things for yourself anyway and if friends happen to see them and engage with them, that's an added bonus. Network effects would not matter here. In fact, this is how I used Path back in the day. I intentionally kept no friends on it and started using it like a journal, recording my thoughts, adding photos and checkins.

And MySpace and GeoCities.

Not completely the same. On OpenAI‘s site it begins with "OpenAI and Microsoft" and on Microsoft‘s with "Microsoft and OpenAI" :)

A proof by example that equality does not imply identity.

> A proof by example that equality does not imply identity.

In this case, is the opposite.

Hmm? Semantically they are equivalent ("this is the same statement"), bytewise they are not identical ("not completely the same"). Both parent comments are true statements. Things can be in the same equivalence class without being identical. What am I missing?