I mostly agree, but why stop at tests? Shouldn’t it be spec driven development? Then neither the code or the language matter. Wouldn’t user stories and requirements à la bdd (see cucumber) be the right abstraction?
Natural language is too ambiguous for this, which makes it impossible to automatically verify
What you need is indeed spec-driven development, but specs need to be written in some kind of language that allows for more formal verification. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract, basically.
It is extremely ironic that, instead, the two languages that LLMs are the most proficient in - and thus the ones most heavily used for AI coding - are JavaScript and Python...
I don't think you're wrong but I feel like there's a big bridge between the spec and the code. I think the tests are the part that will be able to give the AI enough context to "get it right" quicker.
It's sort of like a director telling an AI the high level plot of a movie, vs giving an AI the actual storyboards. The storyboards will better capture the vision of the director vs just a high level plot description, in my opinion.
You can. It’s called multimodal and basically is just picking a shipping container off a train car with a crane and putting it on a truck platform or a ship. 1 platform supports all modes.
This works great for finished consumer goods, but bulk cargo that makes up a significant portion of both rail and truck traffic like grain, liquid products (crude oil, gasoline, vinyl chloride), ore, etc. have very specialized transports that don't work well with the existing multimodal system.
I’ve noticed my kid (12) primarily uses group chats over social apps. Some of his chats have several dozen kids in them. It could be social media got so bad that the protocols became the best alternative. An old programmer like me sees a glimmer of hope in a sea of noise.
It's been that way for awhile, though they do use instagram and/or tiktok for consumption.
iMessage is (was?) a very sticky product for Apple as kids with android get cut out of chats. There's nothing worse for teens that exclusion.
The kids have been taught the dangers of sharing things on the internet, so the risk is minimized sharing in private chats (though obviously still there).
> iMessage is (was?) a very sticky product for Apple as kids with android get cut out of chats. There's nothing worse for teens that exclusion.
Craig Federighi fought against supporting iMessage on Android and RCS for a long time saying, quote, "It would remove obstacles towards iPhone families being able to give their kids Android phones."
Maybe in your neck of the woods, I see no evidence for outside of that. iMessage is completely irrelevant where I live. SMS/MMS full stop is irrelevant.
In the US, people overwhelmingly use SMS/MMS/iMessage by default. It works with every phone, it's the one platform that people won't say "I don't have that" to.
I've no doubt it may be the case in the US, I did not mean to suggest it's not. It simply doesnt have the same sway everywhere.
I don't know literally a single person who uses SMS/MMS/iMessage where I live. And it's been this way for years. It's easily 99% whatsapp/messenger/discord etc. It's pretty openly joked about that the only thing SMS is still for these days is spam/marketing/political messaging.
> I've no doubt it may be the case in the US, I did not mean to suggest it's not. It simply doesnt have the same sway everywhere.
You're correct, of course. WhatsApp was significantly more popular than SMS in the majority of Latin American and European countries before iMessage even really picked up steam in the US. But it doesn't matter, because the US, by revenue share, is the world's largest market, full stop. One of the lessons we can learn from the social media business model is that you can get incredibly large entirely off the US market before it even makes sense to engage in the rest of the world.
The person you're replying to is correct in context of the US market, which if you're Apple is basically the only market that matters other than China, since in the rest of the world most people use Android, usually due to cost differences (flagship Android models sell extremely poor volumes compared to iPhones, even globally).
Its about the extra features iMessage has because of Apple's superset of the underlying SMS/MMS functionality. Its also about having a blue bubble (not-poor) versus a green bubble (poor).
It defies belief how much some demographics care about this stuff, I didn't believe it when I first heard either. Some of it is improving with RCS but its got a ways to go.
Exactly this. Even if RCS does everything iMessage does, you still have a dreaded "green bubble" in iOS messaging which is a huge (anti) social signal to teens.
Does it justify their reason for hating on Android/green bubbles? Of course not, but that's 100% the reality of the situation.
Teens care about silly things like that, but a real thing I care about as an adult is group chats working properly. Like, I was looking for a realtor last year when buying a house. One of them had Android, and I really thought about it, do I want to take a nonzero chance of that somehow screwing the plans up on closing?
That's not the main reason I went with another one, but I still paid attention to how many group iMessages we were in with lenders, seller's realtor, or just me + wife + realtor. Things really did come down to the hour during negotiating and closing, so it might've mattered.
Worrying about whether or not somebody has an Android is going to be very bad for your mental health given that something like 42% of the US cell phone market is Android. Is it possible that you are living in a bubble of people that are significantly more committed to Apple products than the median person?
I don't live in such a bubble, and whether or not somebody has Apple or Android is not something I have ever heard an adult bring up as a serious thing. The most I've ever seen is as an observation about why some sort of thing in a group chat didn't work, but then everyone moves on with their day and the chat continues with the types of text and media that do work.
It was only important for the home-buying process, and somehow every single person involved happened to have an iPhone. Presumably if they were all on Android, they'd prefer WhatsApp, and that'd be ok too.
Outside of that exceptional case, I don't think much about what phone other people have, but I personally want the phone that won't break group chats I get added to. Only about 75% of my friends use iPhones, but there's still a decent chance a group happens to be 100%.
Apple's implementation of RCS is such hot garbage that I disabled it and revert to regular SMS to text with Android people. I'm sure the shoddy RCS support is just a terrible mistake and not by design...
Would you mind listing a couple issues you’ve seen with it? You’ve got me curious if they affect me and I just don’t notice it what. I don’t have all that many contacts though, so it may be just be a numbers game.
Finally getting around to this... The problem was always that the messages just would not send. "Message failed to send. Try again?" I'd say that happened 3/4 of the times I tried. It simply wasn't worth it to fight with it.
Because people like sharing photos and videos and MMS is hot garbage? My phone can record 4K60 video and take 48 megapixel photos, but MMS can only handle 0.72 megapixel photos under 300KB and 240p video capped at 30 seconds. Why would /anyone/ in 2025 want to use SMS/MMS when they could use iMessage or RCS, or even WhatsApp, Signal, Messenger, Discord, et al?
I see this line of thinking online a lot, with people mentioning kids are excluded because they have green bubbles as if it’s some sort of highly superficial exclusion based on only wanting to talk to Apple users.
The main issue is that including a non-iMessage user changes the protocol of the group chat from iMessage to SMS and SMS can basically make group chats unusable.
I also don’t like that kids who don’t have an iPhone can’t participate in iMessage group chats, but when we make out like it’s just kids being cruel and not an actual functional incentive to not include those kids then we are losing sight of where the pressure should be applied.
The pressure should obviously be applied on the underage children with the Apple products, or better yet on Apple. Perhaps the children should be punished and have their iPhones taken away and replaced with budget android phones or flip phones.
This is good in the long run since the behavior they were engaging in puts them at odds with nearly half the population. Not only is it anti-social behavior, it's mind numbingly stupid and likely to backfire in ways that make their lives worse.
~43% of the cell phones out there in the US are Android phones. To follow their conviction against Android at all convincingly and thoroughly, they would be missing out on a lifetime of opportunities and would live a significantly diminished existence.
iPhone is not even close to being a dominant enough platform to be able to enforce this kind of social pressure against anyone but people significantly under the age of 18. Shame them, make sure they feel bad and spoiled (they should feel spoiled for being a child with an iphone), and watch them grow out up to be pro-social adults.
iOS/iPhones are the majority of phones in Canada and the US (~60%). However, if you take the upper half of household incomes that number skyrockets to 80-90%. Comparatively, in the UK it's 50/50. In the rest of europe android mostly has a 60-75% market share (tends to drift more towards android the more eastern you go - signalling wealth has a lot to do with it).
The reasons why are varied (everything from wealth signalling to switching being a pain and iphone mostly had a first mover advantage for quality and availability for the first several years), but it's only in the last two years that I've seen people start to use multi-platform chat apps here. Most of my peer group with other parents all default to imessage group chats for sharing photos, stories of our kids.
I am also starting to notice a loosening on apple's services. Spotify is used by more people than Apple music even amungst the apple households I know.
Kids are ruthless about anti green bubble discrimination and it’s part of the reason for the rise of incels. The overwhelming majority of incels are android users, and the mainstream cultural media likes to make clear that one of the reason for being incels is them using a “poordroid”
Lmao. Don't pay any attention to the thing about incels, which whether true or not, so obviously does not establish that android was a causative factor. Look at the percentage of US people that have Android. iPhone is not nearly as dominant in the US as spoiled brat teens seem to think. Nearly half the population is Android users. I'm sure we are all incels.
Yeah, 99% of incels (at least the ones I know about, mostly because they hit the news) have an obvious mental health tick or manifestation that turns off potential romantic partners. These people are being excluded (rightly or wrongly) because of that, not because of Android.
The countless myriad number of TikTok’s, reels, etc from women calling out how using an android is a dealer breaker. The community made polls of “incels.us” about this exact question, and the other links I cited showing green bubble social discrimination.
My original post has enough receipts. If you don’t believe me you’re free to remain wrong. But here’s more anyway:
These memes posted on short video sites also have parallel ones of women making fun of guys who try to do the whole “hold on let me pirate this movie and HDMI connect it to the TV thing” instead of having Netflix.
I don't doubt that some women make fun of men for green bubbles, but this doesn't mean the vast majority of incels are Android users. If that were true, wouldn't they just get an iPhone?
Also the HDMI thing is hilarious because it's exactly what my wife would say about me.
> but this doesn't mean the vast majority of incels are Android users
Is there such a thing as incels? I thought it was just a stupid concept to bully people. Not that it doesn't exist, but I wouldn't think that there is a category of people (kids, I guess?) who "are" incels, is there? In some contexts, some kids are "considered" incels by bullies.
In this case, it's guys who want a girlfriend but are constantly rejected, which is a thing, also same in reverse. But if anyone ever says it's because of bubble color, it's probably an excuse for an actual reason.
Sure, but my point is that it is a dumb, irrational concept. And therefore I don't think that there is such a thing as a "description of incels".
I could get with "the vast majority of kids who get bullied have Android phones", maybe. And instead of saying "haha you're poor" (which is already moronic in itself), the bullies say "haha you're an incel". I guess because it hurts more?
But "the vast majority of incels have an Android phone" both implies that "being an incel" is an actual thing (which it is not) and that having an Android phone has an influence on one's ability to find a partner (which it has not).
WhatsApp never caught on in the US since cell phones and SMS were a great deal for keeping in touch. By the time WhatsApp arrived US carriers were not raping their customers for phone calls or SMS messages (in the early days of cell phones they were - be very careful responding as the state of the world has changed many times over the years and so it is quite possible you remember a time where your country was better than the US for reasons that are no longer true!). Note in particular calls and SMS to a different state is included, and typically Canada is included as well. As such we never developed the WhatsApp habbit as it didn't give us anything.
Yes. WhatsApp isn't nearly as popular in the US as in many other countries.
Idk what the stats are on this, but anecdotally, all my friends use FB Messenger if they want cross-platform group chat, but that's slowly changing to some fragmented list of alternatives. And usually it's not for semi-important things like get-together plans.
It literally works seamlessly though? Just converts to MMS and you don't notice outside the "liked BLABLABLA" sort of messages that trickle in without the imessage emoji system.
I don't think seamless integration with MMS is enough to outweigh being different/not having "the real thing" or the full experience in the eyes of a young teenager. This reads as the HN version of the "but we have iMessage at home" meme (I mean this humourously, not as snark).
iMessage chats also include rich media that is either degraded in MMS (photos, videos unless you have RCS support) or just doesn't exist (like multiplayer games, invites, apple cash, etc).
This may not seem like a big deal to you, but if you remember what it's like to be a kid, you should get it. The smallest friction can be a reason to exclude someone socially.
Even that has been fixed by now in my chats with android friends. The only reason to display green bubbles anymore is to indicate lack of E2EE. But that will be coming to RCS interop soon as well.
In theory it's ok. In practice, MMS group chats are broken. It's not even an iPhone thing, as evident in Android-dominated areas still relying on WhatsApp instead.
Group chat has always been the killer social app. 6 years ago I convinced my browser friends group to adopt Telegram and since then we’ve all abandoned FB, Instagram, etc… We have a ton of different threads all with different topics: kids, food, gardening, exercise, pets, memes, and a bunch of serious topic threads as well.
It’s been incredibly effective at keeping us connected and engaged as we’ve all moved across the country and grow in an apart physically.
The take away is; what people want from social media is to be connected with their real friends. However that isn’t as engaging as a random feed, so the companies push people away from that.
I guess group chat would be fine if all your friends are friends of each other. High School and college ages maybe, but as an older adult, I have so many different groups of people that I interact with that it would be obnoxious to deal with. I also find that there are certain people in group chats who are lonely and spam crap.
I do that in Signal, I have group chats with different circles of friends ,and we also regularly create short-lived purpose-built chats for events or other things...
It's a bit more friction perhaps but in the end it works well and we've been doing it for years.
I'm in a similar group but using Discord. It seems that lack of advertising or any kind of algo feed is the common feature. Who runs your Telegram server?
I hate group chats (hate). It's a cliquey childish high-school cafeteria mode of communicating (thus why highschoolers use group chats). It's a clear step backwards and is representative of the covid-era stazi-like mentality people developed where they felt it was unsanity to share their views or life with the world at large (and maybe, given what we've learned about social media and nation-states, that's not without merit -- i.e the UK). Perfect world social media is a means of forming connections and expanding your little room(s).
Is it - hear me out - possible that you are overthinking this? People tend to use group chats for coordination and quick banter with people they already know. Not as an alternative to the phpBB boards of old.
Eh, I think the parent has a point. You underline it yourself when you say “people they already know”.
The internet didn’t always involve a choice between “talk to people I know” vs “bravely/foolishly taking on the vitriol of a wild horde of angry delusional maniacs”, but now we’ve lost almost all of the space in between those extremes. People like hacker news exactly because it’s the rare place that’s still in the middle *(sometimes, on some topics, for now)
There’s a lot of people on hackernews with whom I cannot agree on a great many important things. Happily, none of them appear to be technical, so it works out fine.
There's far too much downside to sharing your genuine thoughts, especially on politics, or things you find funny, etc. with the entire Internet because regular people and nation-state level actors will vilify you and nowadays even have you deported for things you say publicly.
That's why we all use group chats and messaging. There's no safe alternative
>It's a clear step backwards and is representative of the covid-era stazi-like mentality people developed where they felt it was unsanity to share their views or life with the world at large...
... what? I'm in my late 30's and group chats have been a part of life for myself, my friends and my family since the late 90's. I've never wanted to share my views with "the world at large" online, but I have no problem being myself and sharing my views in meatspace, where being open and honest about who I am is far more impactful to those I interact with and the world around me than it ever has been on social media.
Within the world of the pop-web, even on this website to a point, the ability to have a truly nuanced discussion has essentially been eliminated. People would rather throw out hot takes based on disingenuous interpretations of someone's comment/statement rather than try and have an impactful, open conversation.
Sounds like you’d have appreciated 90s era irc, which was good for nuanced and sincere discussion, but also did not require talking to people that you already knew.
There’s a sweet spot between open/closed and known/unknown and somewhat focused but not too niche where it kind of works. Theres a certain size that works too, ideally Lots of users and yet occasionally you recognize someone. But I don’t think that’s what people mean at all by group chat today, which regardless of venue tends to be rather more insular and thus echo’y.
In IRC, and as many do here, you used an alias to have the confidence to speak freely. Products like WhatsApp where people reveal their real identities don't lend themselves to that frankness when membership is open.
I very much appreciated 90s era IRC back in the day. I find community comparable to what you described in still-existing phpBB and phpBB-esque hobby-focused forums that I use regularly.
There is nothing preventing you from expanding your group chat roster. It is just that random strangers can't drop in; you have to add them.
You would have to sacrifice the privacy of your group if you wanted to support serendipitous membership growth. Do you want to be constantly reviewing membership requests? That's what Facebook groups look like. And you have little information to judge the requests by, since the profiles can be fake, especially today. And when complete strangers can join the group, the dynamics change.
I never understood why they became less popular when mobile phones took over. Even in the 00s so many people were already in group chats through MSN, ICQ and so on.
All Microsoft had to do was make the former into a proper mobile app. Instead they wasted billions on Skype to replace their golden opportunity.
>?All Microsoft had to do was make the former into a proper mobile app.
I begged Microsoft to make MSN on Windows Mobile and later on Android or iPhone.
They just dont get it nor do they care. Whatsapp wasn't even a thing on Smartphone. Its dominance came a little later.
And without a smartphone or mobile network, people keep in contact especially those not in close group via Social Media aka MySpace and Facebook or Friendster.
Now smartphone ubiquitous in most places. The contact list has taken over. Social Media became a news feed.
This is actually one of the great entrepreneurship lessons of my career, which I think about a lot.
Around 2009, as smart phones were on their exponential leg up, and when I was still pretty new in the workplace, I remember thinking (and talking with my coworkers) about how messaging and chat rooms were really well suited to the technology landscape. But I lamented "too bad the space is already too crowded with options for anyone to use anything new.
But all of today's major messaging successes became household names after that! What I learned from this is that I have a tendency to think that trends are played out already, when actually I'm early in the adoption curve.
Heh, this reminds me of a vaguely related lesson I learned recently. Sold Nvidia mid-2023. "Surely everyone understands by now just how much money they're going to be making the coming 2 years, and this is already completely priced in, it's so blatantly obvious!". Heh.
Ha, someone who has money to invest asked me about an investment thesis at the end of 2022 related to the release of chatgpt. I said nvidia seemed like the most clearly likely to benefit in terms of public equities, but he said no way, it was already overpriced. :shrug:
Everything hypey overshoots eventually, but nobody knows exactly when!
I think those networks never figured out how to make money off of it. Without the tracking (and piles of VC cash) that modern social media got, the ads were not worth enough. Microsoft and AOL just saw them as cost centers so when the mobile ecosystem didn’t support their legacy persistent-connection-style protocols they saw no value in investing in rewriting everything.
Piles of VC cash were never necessary, FWIW. Tracking, potentially. They may indeed have massively undervalued ads, or even other monetization options - Line makes millions off of emojis and such, and if they'd have been as big as Whatsapp, possibly billions. Meta too is not even tapping 5% of Whatsapp's monetization potential, FWIW. I wonder if it's intentional to prevent anti-trust concerns.
But I don't think monetization matters too much. Ms tried making the botched Skype play, and as a company there's no way they didn't understand the value of hundreds of millions of eyeballs, daily usage market share. They understood that with IE, despite it being a zero-revenue product in and of itself.
> when the mobile ecosystem didn’t support their legacy persistent-connection-style protocols
You may know more about this then I do - what's the main difference? I used them back in the day and as end-user they felt the exact same as modern messaging apps. I send a message, it gets saved on some server, the receiver gets it from there. When I used it, it definitely didn't require both parties to be online to send/receive.
I remember using a lot of very low quality, buggy Skype apps on mobile over the years. I don't think it ever approached desktop quality.
To be honest it didn't even work great on laptops that got turned on and off or went in and out of connectivity. The networking piece seemed designed for an always on desktop.
Feels like it went myspace -> facebook -> snapchat and never went back to such "public profile" ideals and stayed in chat apps. When I was in college in the early '10's, it seemed like everyone was obsessed with the "temporary chat" idea and actually believed that you could guarantee a message or picture could be temporary.
Did they become less popular? I think they are just less visible by nature, they've always been pretty common. I guess some people switched to Facebook Groups for a time, but even that is sort of a form of group chat.
They never worked properly on phones, including images/video and history. Same for SMS chats on top of being hideously expensive because the phone companies thought it was still the 1960s.
Yes, that's why they should have made them work properly.
Simply put the main problem was that those old IMs required a persistent connection to the server when you "just" had to add a new protocol that can do session resumption/polling. Then make a pretty mobile UI and make it possible to find other users by phone number - imo this was the number one reason why WhatsApp and iMessage won. It's an app on your phone, so it uses your phone number, not another artificial number or name or mail address - it's something the most tech illiterate gets. Because then it's just "SMS but with groups and photos". But you could have allowed to merge it with your existing account from desktop times, so all the young hip people would've kept all their contacts.
IIRC one of the reasons WhatsApp has done so well is that they basically supported every platform under the sun, which was a technical challenge back in the day.
These days the field is much narrower but 10+ years ago finding an app that supported everyone's device was a challenge.
> one of the reasons WhatsApp has done so well is that they basically supported every platform under the sun
Not really. There's still no iPad version.
My friend installed Whatsapp from the App Store for their iPad, to find it didn't behave quite as expected, and didn't match their phone and desktop experience.
That turned out to be because it was an app from some random third party with its own features. It used Whatsapp in the name, and had a similar logo.
When my friend realised they were unexpectedly using a third party app, from a provider they'd never heard of, they were worried they'd accidentally given away access to their account full of sensitive messages to someone they didn't trust.
I was surprised my cautious friend would install the wrong app by mistake, as the Apple app store is normally good for well known services.
While scrolling through Whatsapp apps, it took me a while to realise the top search result, which my friend had installed, wasn't actually from Whatsapp (but looked similar). Even though the logo was a little different, I assumed that was just a quirk. It's just so unexpected to find that what you get on iPad isn't the real thing, when searching for Whatsapp gets you the real thing if you're looking from an iPad or Mac.
I think WhatsApp's magic sauce was the effortless onboarding. No need for accounts, passwords, nagging for 2fa, your email, your socials, just get the app and go, by delegating all that to the phone (and phone number as the user id).
Am I misremembering the timeline of real access to SMS and data? I feel like most of the 00s most people had limited of both without spending a lot of money.
Group chats are: free, have no ads, and sharing is with exactly who you intend. When I want to send a photo to direct family and in-laws I don't blast it on social media, I send it to the group chat that has direct family and in-laws in it. That's it, easy-peasy. Even my 70-something mother in-law participates in it.
...but you have to share it specifically with each separate group. When I take a cute photo of my son doing something, I have to share it with the family group for my side, and that of my wife; and none of my friends or random extended family get to see it. If my wife's fam shares a photo of my son that I think my fam wants to see, I have to manually port it over. Back in Facebook's heyday, I could just share it; or if my wife's fam tagged me in the photo, my family & friends would see it as well.
And, of course, in group chat, your different friend groups never interact. One of the coolest thing about Facebook in its heyday was when two of your friends who didn't know each other had a cool conversation on your wall and then became friends themselves.
Unfortunately there really doesn't seem to be a proper replacement -- BlueSky and Mastodon are replacements for Twitter, not Facebook. Group chats aren't as good, but they're the closest thing going.
i actually think it's good that you need to explicitly share the photo with each group. people like getting a message that they know you decided you wanted them (or their little group) to see.
if i see a photo that a friend broadcasts out once on a social feed, i see it and move on.
if a friend puts a photo in a text/group chat, i know that it's something they wanted to share with me
IMO it absolutely is the better way to model it. There's a reason that verbiage already existed in English. The other commenter is right though, there are the rare interaction between social circles that are lost but honestly I remember seeing just as many poor ones on FB back in the day as spontaneous positive ones.
Circles was basically an ACL system, which isn't fun. Even if you do care exactly who you're sharing things with, it's not easy to tell with a Circle who that is.
>...but you have to share it specifically with each separate group
For me personally, this is a feature not a bug. I want things I see to be things that somebody wrote just for that channel. It's why I use group chat over social media.
Really makes you wonder if/when Discord goes IPO, that Meta would buy a controlling stake in it?
Fortunately there are open source alternatives even if they aren't as popular as Discord at the moment, such as Revolt Chat: https://revolt.chat/
I miss the days of self-hosted forums; sadly it seems that algorithms, and the need to satisfy the need for 'instant' connection/information are ruining forums for young newcomers...
It’s the same for me (in my thirties). A decade ago, Instagram showed me photos that my friends shared. Today it’s ads, memes and other crap with a small proportion of photos of friends. The noise:signal ratio is so high that I don’t even bother.
Facebook was the same a long time ago.
Social media in the form it had 10-15 years ago has died. But I don’t think it’s an inevitable path: I think Meta has iterated in their services in a way that killed what was previously there.
Back when we all had pet dinosaurs in our back yards and you only saw what your friends post.
This is a useful function as opposed to what the engagement algorithms push these days. So no wonder everyone moves to other options for group communication.
You mean you don't have a "where do we go out this saturday" chat group with your friends circle?
I see similar too. Both my teenagers got WhatsApp because we as parents had WhatsApp. They have slowly started using Signal in their friends groups. Now as a family we use Signal because the kids started us on it. We are based in Europe and iMessage is almost never used. I’m only on WhatsApp now because other parents are still using it. Sadly my oldest uses Instagram (on a strict daily timer), but apparently “it’s still cool to have an insta” and the killer feature there is that is super easy to network without sharing your phone number (I know signal also has this feature but it’s a bit hidden).
I think you're right, but also groupchats allow you to create cliques which facebook never really offered as a feature. What they did offer was broadcasting lists which is not the same as a clique. Groups didn't really integrate cliques well IMO as they were more "public oriented" but they are probably the closest thing.
Usenet: eternal-september.org - you might find others after a while but there are no other major free text servers. If you pay another company for binary access (these are mostly used for piracy) you can also use it for text though.
I have chats for the parents in the class, parents from kindergarden, all the dads, my family, extended family. The list doesn’t end. It’s far, far better than Facebook though.
I go to sci fi cons and telegram has become the de facto method of coordination for everything. Party, meal, event we all want to attend, any kind of meetup we create a channel for it to be used ephemerally and invite everyone who’s going. It’s a million times better than any event invite functionality of social networks, absolutely frictionless and without all the frankly stupid stuff social networks add.
Yeah, I had more luck with just giving an ai the openapi spec and letting it figure everything out. I like a lot about MCP (structure, tool guidance, etc), but couldn't it just have been a REST API and a webserver?
I think people often think of their specific use-case and tend to forget the bigger picture. MCP does not force one transport or the other and that is great—use any transport you want as long as it uses JSON RPC as the payload.
The two built in transports are also extremely minimalistic and for SSE transport use regular HTTP—no need for web sockets or other heavier dependencies because SSE events are lightweight and broadly supported.
Lost my wife to brain cancer (gb4). After sifting through the noise, here’s what works based on stat sig research as far as I know:
1. Radiation
2. Surgery, awake craniotomy to reduce loss of function
3. Temodar chemotherapy
4. Optune helmets
5. Monoclonal antibodies
6. Maybe high dose vitamin C (suspicious results)
If I knew then what I know now I would have focused on reducing stress in our lives as it felt like it accelerated the growth, perhaps due to a weakened immune system. Quality of life and joyful moments together is the best you can hope for. It brings you into awareness of the magic of life and each other. Focus on that — which is 100% in your control.
Daniel Shiffman taught me to code for the first time in a way that totally shifted the way I thought about coding from utilitarian to fun and creative. I wonder how many lives he's had this impact on. Good on you sir.
I remember discovering his Youtube channel, it was either during my first year of University and i'd watch them as much for entertainment as education. Every so often i'd find myself following along.
Between semesters I watched some of his search algorithm videos, including his two part A* videos, and recreated it. When semester started I took a classical AI course and the first assignment was search algorithms. And my goodness was it helpful.
How does this theory hold up when your trade partner doesn’t give you equal access to their markets and has the potential to use this media platform to spread disinformation? I don’t think this is an innovation issue as much as a political one.
No equal access, but Tesla, and apple remain popular in china (for those with the money to buy them) in spite of the propaganda.
Our own social media platforms have been doing a perfectly good job of spreading disinformation. And now were building ML systems to accelerate someone's agenda.
You beat tiktok by building what's next and watching it fade like every other platform before it.
Tesla and Apple aren't social media companies. They're also American companies. I'd be against the bill if American companies had as much access and freedom to operate in China as we give Chinese companies operating in the US. Since that's not gonna happen, fine with forcing bytedance to divest.
