It's been terrible that BitTorrent doesn't work anymore. I can only download 10TB of all the movies and TV shows our family has ever wanted spanning 60 years. It has to run off this massive server in the closest as big as our cat! Sucks our grandma can't access it from across the country via Tailscale and a bit of DNS abuse.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. Obviously Bitcoin doesn't "work" for any purpose. But in contrast, Tor obviously works. Here are constantly updating HTTP response dumps from the Tor hidden service ecosystem: https://rnsaffn.com/zg4/ (NSFW) There is a lot happening inside the Tor network.
It’s not massive. It’s extremely tiny. It’s just that the system is very delicate and we are even tinier, so the effects from our perspective are large. (Think getting hit with a little 1/100000000th of earth mass meteor. The earth will barely react on galactic scale/ long term, but the momentary occupants will sure get a shock)
Interesting and surprising comments. Anyone ever heard of AOL? Are they dead?
I think Google will likely go through similar path as Microsoft; such a tech powerhouse and cash cow for so long, innovation became eclipsed by profit optimization.
Microsoft turned it around a decade ago with a successful cloud pivot.
Google would have to fail fabulously for minimum of a decade before we could even begin to start claiming it’s terminal.
I think that when people say "dead" in this context, they aren't really meaning "out of business". They're meaning "no longer relevant".
AOL, as well as IBM, are both still doing pretty good business, but in terms of relevancy (at least culturally), they are both pretty dead. Neither can move markets. They are shadows of their former selves.
Microsoft “turned it around” by extracting money out of its existing enterprise customer base. Apple had a base of fanatic customers even during its lowest point.
If Gmail is just email and I use it on my iPhone with the native mail application -- along with 5 other email accounts. If Gmail disappeared tomorrow, I would choose another email provider. There are very few "fanatics" for Android. It's the only alternative if you don't want to spend on an expensive phone. But the majority of people who can afford a more expensive phone -- buy an iPhone.
Much much happier working remote in a small town. That satisfaction would likely drop with the salary arbitrage dropping. If I could afford privacy in Palo Alto, I’m sure I could be just as happy there.
I just bought a 23 Kia Telluride (was also looking at palisades) to upgrade my 05 outback; I did extensive research, and ended up zoning in on Hyundai-Kia specifically because their electronics are so 'hackable,' while still containing all the cutting edge sensors.
I think it is going to be a tiny sliver of cars that are allowed to get away with having a vehicle be able to be controlled like a remote control from a completely unencrypted, trivially intercepted-and-changed protocol. In the future I suspect if manufacturers want to put these features on cars, they will have to protect the communication between the different systems.
It's of course a huge improvement. It was close and I'd probably have been happy with either but ultimately the telluride had features i cared about (better towing) and palisade had some i didn't (electified third row seats); and I like the look of the telluride better.
I live in a rural area and got the trim with the 'offroadish' appeal; which didn't really exist in palisade.
I’ve never worked at a huge org. I assume though that there is a hypocrisy between what you are asked to do (trivial small things) and what is rewarded (big bold changes).
The structure of scientific revolutions (kuhns seminal contribution) has influenced and helped my thinking more than any other prose by a large margin.
The desperation which fully-subscribed adherents of a paradigm cling to said paradigm in spite of shortcomings of its explanatory power is the most powerful signal for detecting big shifts within a domain.
Kuhn only applies it to scientific paradigms, but the exact same patterns emerge within microcosms
I don't disagree with you at some level, but I also see a lot of hype in modern science and intellectual discourse. Maybe not for all fields, but for many.
A recent paper has been making the rounds suggesting that disruptive research is becoming less common. This seems critically important for interpreting Kuhn.
Perhaps, for instance, Kuhn was writing or formulating his ideas in an unusually disruptive era. Or maybe our current era is less disruptive, and so discourse about ideas has to be approached differently, maybe more skeptically.
That's a good question and sometimes I wrestle with that. But hype cycles are real, and with some things I think there's just a lot of unanswered questions that get glossed over, or even worse, fundamental problems with underlying logic or something?
Studies have shown that people are pretty good at identifying when studies won't replicate, and I think that insight (foresight?) among some extends to identifying overhyped research. I think part of the issue with "disruptive" ideas in science is that I think there's enough people who don't recognize potential problems with it before it can catch on a lot before water is put on the fire, so to speak.
There's some analogies to things like Theranos or crypto probably. They get a lot of monetary investments, and a lot of enthusiasm, but then there's also lots of pushback. You could get into arguments about whether or not they are truly disruptive -- maybe they haven't been -- but I think defining that also is murkier in science also.
Maybe truly truly disruptive ideas are hard to dismiss as mere hype, but I think in the grey area between, a lot of things look relatively disruptive but are overhyped.
Ahaha! Fair call. We're looking to support WhatsApp but SMS is handy because it's not an org owned platform. I've previously been in large corporates where chat logs etc. are maintained and might present a risk to the end user that's beyond our control. Also, response rates are way, way higher through SMS than any other delivery method.
What about a dedicated site or app? For teams that use something like Slack, you could send an automated reminder to click a link and fill out the survey.
(Sorry if I missed that you had already tried or are planning those)
integration with imessage would be the most valuable. where internet is strong, but cell signal is weak, SMS is really brutal. that's my life. any data that can't flow "over the internet" is just ridiculous at this point
I can do voice calls over WiFi, but SMS does not seem to ever go over Wi-Fi. Because I am rural and connection is so valuable, I carry two phones, one on Verizon, one on ATT+TMobile. Both are iPhones, but one of them is about 4 years old.
(If anyone has any hacks to get on FirstNet, I’d love to hear them)
Incredibly weird, I have the same issue with bad cell reception in a lot of parks, so I tend to go into airplane mode and can send and receive SMS on T-Mobile‘s network with VoWiFi just fine. Have you tried reaching out to them?
This is a great idea. Thank you! We will look into it for sure. We're looking at WhatApp, WeChat, etc. too and trying to decide the best way for us to let the staff decide how they want to receive the message.
If you're looking to expand to continental Europe, I'd strongly suggest WhatsApp if you want to stick to the SMS-style interactions. The only SMS messages I get are one-time verification codes and roaming notifications. Everything else is usually spam.
Good info, thank you! We were pushing on WhatsApp for South America and Asia (we tested through Singapore, Philippines, Myanmar, Indonesia and Malaysia but pulled back on the region because SMS carrier support is so varied. New Zealand is a nightmare too. But being well used in EU, we might need to bump this up the roadmap.
Telegram and Signal have been gaining some traction in Germany (don't know about other EU countries) but the former saw most of its adoption among "COVID skeptics" and has had some kind of falling out with the German government over refusal to cooperate with the authorities, so its reputation is mixed and its legal status going forward is unclear. Signal doesn't seem to suffer the same reputation but doesn't seem to control much market share.
WhatsApp is ubiquitous, at least among millenials and above. I'm not sure what the zoomers are up to. It's unavoidable for parents especially because parent groups exist for everything from kindergarten to sports. Usage may decline in the years to come over Meta's data protection issues but there's no end in sight.
It is very easy to get wealthy (assuming access to western markets and not being party to systemic racism) if you are willing or able to do even one or two things better than most people.
I am working on my second “fortune.” I liked reading the article, even though it kind of hurts to look backward at myself also being too complacent. The decisions I would have had to make to have generational wealth today, a decade later, are far more reasonable than the decisions I actually made.
I went down past 0, and today (a decade later) I own a few properties and have a net worth about 5x my income. My mindset is 1000x different. I am hyper vigilant about staying hedged and frugal.
The absolute number 1 thing you need to do to get rich is save >20% of your income. Whether you make 20k/yr or 200k, if you can pay yourself approximately what you pay the government, even the simplest investment strategies are virtually guaranteed to make you fabulously wealthy by typical standards.
If you are making 20k and can’t find room in your budget to save 4k, obviously you’ve got to increase your income somehow. If you are making average or above average income and can’t save, you can decide if frugality or more income is path of least resistance to higher savings rate.
The other critical thing to getting rich, if you want to do something other than DCA into indexes over decades, is to realize that the opportunities to get way-above-market returns are far, far more numerous if you are taking $10k positions vs $100M positions.
> It is very easy to get wealthy (assuming access to western markets and not being party to systemic racism) if you are willing or able to do even one or two things better than most people.
Given that hardly anyone gets wealthy (as a percentage of the population), either your claim is wrong, or hardly anyone is willing or able to do even one or two things better than most people.
Also, people do not get rich from incomes, as a general rule.
> either your claim is wrong, or hardly anyone is willing or able to do even one or two things better than most people
That is cute, but not logical. Let me offer a third option: people don't do it, despite the fact that it is easy.
I might say, if you have normal body control, it is very easy to make your bed every day. Your logic applied to that same statement might be, "given that roughly half of people don't make their bed every day, either half the population doesn't have normal body control, or your claim is wrong"
There are many things that are very easy to do, without any caveats at all, that most people don't do.
> Also, people do not get rich from incomes, as a general rule.
People who cannot save money that they can invest into their own endeavors or others, very rarely get rich.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "rich." Most of forbes 500 does not get there through income. However, the large majority of self-made people in the 1M-10M networth range did it with initially earned income, which became saved income, and then invested that savings (either in themselves as an entrepreneur, or just in the public markets).
Thanks for saying it. Industrial energy storage hardly strikes the intuition as less tractable than a skyscraper in the desert or a tunnel under the ocean
