Hmm. You could also argue that not having understanding of the technology is a good thing. For instance, the judge can remove themselves from the details and look at it on a higher level.

It’s the job of the attorneys to make the case for or against using subject matter experts etc.

You could argue that. However, it means that people can basically lie to the judges, and the judges don't have the background to call them out on it.

Yeah that’s the difference between a “blank stare” in the interview and a decent response. Anyone applying for a database position should know that relates to transactions and yadda-yadda. They should know why transactions are important, etc.

But… I’d like to say this is the kind of problem these quick-boot coding schools fall short on. Sure one can learn programming language X, but that doesn’t mean one has any sort of fundamentals in algorithms, data structures or general database technology.

Pretty sure the military recommends their troops use signal for civilian communication when abroad.

In addition, I’d wager lots of politicians use it now for obvious reason’s.

Ergo that won’t happen. That being said, can’t blame DoJ for trying though.

Why do you consider it acceptable for the DoJ put citizens and their communication at risk? Aren't they supposed to work for the people instead of against them?

#1 is most relevant. China got hit with massive flooding and their rapidly built infrastructure isn’t built to withstand climate changes.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Who gives what China is failing at: we need a technological evolution that works with the planet.

Folks who say, “well they’re not doing it so why should we?” Are abdicating all responsibility and are probably lazy citizens to begin with.

Spending your time how you want to is never meaningless. Especially if you’re creating value in the world.

I think the Unix philosophy should apply here. The fact that WhatsApp did one thing well and it had a good business model (was it $1 per year?) is the important bit.

When you say, “Now the app does dating…” I think the right move is to scrap the project because that’s a colossal fuckup. Unless you have Microsoft cash to have multiple colossal fuckups in a row, don’t add another dating app to your messaging app. Ergo, less is more.

WhatsApp probably started with passion and a solid vision. The Zuckerberg gave them an offer they couldn’t refuse. Anyone will take 19 billion for a basket full of Indian users.

Another thing WhatsApp did well is they targeted ALL phones. They didn’t abandon their users like the fang-bangers (sorry been watching True Blood— FAANG is an annoying acronym so they are hereby fang-bangers).

>Another thing WhatsApp did well is they targeted ALL phones. They didn’t abandon their users like the fang-bangers (sorry been watching True Blood— FAANG is an annoying acronym so they are hereby fang-bangers).

That was clearly the killer "feature." Whatsapp is synonymous with communication on the developing world because of this. I remember when I was introduced to it fairly early on in Brazil and someone claiming that yeah, anyone no matter the OS could get on it. I couldn't believe it, to be honest, it felt like what iMessage was starting to look like... but for everyone? I can't imagine what it would've been like to support so many things, but clearly it was a lot of sweat that paid off extremely handsomely.

Maybe.

I'm not saying that philosophy is bad, just that reality is complicated.

"Scrap the project and move on" works in some contexts, not others. The way startups/products actually work, often, is evolutionary. If your texting idea didn't work, but you see a chance to pivot into something... are you really going to just fire everyone and tell investors "sorry?"

That said, the "one thing well" philosophy really does have big engineering advantages. You can't have everything. I'm just raising the "retrospectives" warning.

In any case, the "$1 per year" was never a real business model. They never even got around to actually charging it... because anything that limits the usership of a messaging app will sink it. It's the opposite of "support everything" strategy that made them successful.

"Sell to Zuck" was always the plan.

Yeah I agree with the idea of pivoting. I suppose to clarify:

* Pivoting would leverage existing technology built in the process of initial concept. Which to me is the equivalent of scrapping the initial idea (while salvaging the generally-useful IP/technology).

* Adding a bunch of tangential features to a product to increase revenue is a colossal fuckup scenario (maybe the language is a bit over dramatic).

For instance, Google is great at search; gmail is cool; docs was innovative (albeit limited); and then… https://killedbygoogle.com/

Unfortunately, after seeing this time and time again it’s tough for me to get behind mainstream tech. I loved the old Microsoft/Nokia phones; and the Zune. You can tell a lot or love went into the design/engineering but then projects just get axed by corporate interests.

Meanwhile, you can by a mechanical device or appliance from 1950s and it’ll still work just fine.

Again, I don't disagree with you... just think reality makes it messy.

Pivoting via "scrap & salvage" is pretty tough for a startup. The tech behind whatsapp was evidently good, but the IP behind a messaging app is probably not enough to give you an edge. Users are.

Made up scenario: whatsapp loses the SMS replacement game. They have millions of users, but not a billion. Meanwhile, they find that a subset of users like to use whatsapp for dating (or customer support, etc. doesn't matter). They pivot to focus on those customers, and evolve into something else.

This might be a (drama noted) colossal fuckup scenario in an engineering sense. A tractor that you are now converting into a ship.

Evolving is definitely a worse way of engineering than starting with the intention of designing a ship, with neatly defined tonnage, speed and size requirements. Instead, it takes a miracle to implement basic ship features like floating.

Evolving is how a lot of actual software gets invented. Spreadsheets were intended for accountants. They weren't meant to be used as a database, incident report generators, a casual programming environment, or a HR tool. It became those things by evolving.

It happened that way because inventing UIs is hard, and evolving into them happened to work. It's still true that "colossal fuckup scenarios" arise because of this approach. Excel programmer spent decades making excel better at things it's architecture wasn't good at. It's ugly and messy, but life is sometimes ugly and messy.

Flexibility is valuable. Knowing the spec in advance is valuable. Very valuable. They're in conflict with each other to some extent

I think it was 79 euro cents for a lifetime at first (this thread brought back memories of my installing WhatsApp on my phone while I was asleep), then it became 89 euro cents per year (except for the users who had been grandfathered in), and then came the Facebook acquisition and they made it free for everyone.

The browser has a search bar at the top of the page; Amazon has a search bar at the top of the page.

Ergo it’s actually bad UX design. Thinking desktop UX if that was an “Amazon app” there would be ONE singular search bar.

To make matters worse, Windows has a search bar in start (usually at the bottom); browser has a search bar (at the top); some websites have their own search bar; file explorer has its own search bar.

You get the point: bad UX design enforced by assumptions made at each layer of the OS/browser/website. Many out of the control of users and developers alike. Nonetheless, it’s overcrowding the UX with redundancy.

Historically speaking, users had an ability to “find stuff” on their system but it was never by an implicit “search bar”; users had to explicitly do something like: file -> find prior to entering search query.

The web browser was the one with the search bar (having one job: entering URLs not search terms) and when websites had a search feature it was typically placed in the middle of site or somewhere else (typically reserved for search terms).

Modern UX can be ridiculous in ways devs put too much emphasis on these “automatic” components. Like the annoying page header that suddenly scrolls with content and takes up 1/3 of the page. Ack! Don’t even get me started.

> The browser has a search bar at the top of the page; Amazon has a search bar at the top of the page.

I assume this is deliberate. Amazon doesn't want you clicking on URLs that don't point to Amazon. A search bar that doesn't do an internet search, but looks like a browser search bar, would seem to fit the bill.

I believe Amazon will fade away, once that bald guy reaches the orbit of Saturn. It's basically just an online shop with low prices - I can't see any USP.

Incidentally, the combined URL-and-search bar (is that still called the "awesomebar"? It's not awesome) in my version of Firefox (93.0, running on Windows 10) doesn't actually let me search, unless I select a search engine. If I search for "red shoes", it tries to take me to "redshoes.com". If I search for "red doctor martens", it says it can't find a site with that name. I have to choose a search engine, even if I only have one search engine configured. I suppose I must have broken something.

Apparently you just set your preferences to not search from the URL bar.

Hard disagree your hard disagree.

If you throw a vase in the air it will fall down and shatter: like, duh it’s gravity. But how many years to figure the equations? To tie the how/why to the obvious?

Don’t trivialize their work because your work didn’t receive a Nobel. K thanks.

These discoveries could be game changers for prosthetics, brain computer interfaces, augmented reality, etc.

I’m trivializing their research based on their inherent triviality. Any new gene could be game changers for a plethora of ailments. The correct gravity comparison would be trying to celebrate someone finding the value of g in Oxford when the original measurement was in London.

I didn’t say I am sour I didn’t get one. When did a film critic need an Oscar before he could criticize moviemakers?

I've no background in the field but tend to agree. "Humans have thousands of different kinds of sensor mechanisms, and here are two of them" - seems like an award that could be given repeatedly, no?

There’s the other side of the spectrum as well: what the influencers seek to gain by amplifying criticisms for any odd remark.

Just think of the whole anti-vaccine movements and the spread of misinformation. Folks come out of the woodwork and claim a myriad of side effects but they have no background to scientifically vet the published vaccine research.

Influencers leveraging fear and confusion as a way to amplify bias and shame people making positive comments on a vaccine.

And this generates them massive followings and potentially increases “social status”.

Curiously I’m seeing somewhat of a proportional trend: as peoples ability to amplify misinformation increases, so does the value of censorship. This is kind of scary to be honest—to say that censorship has inherent value in our society.

All it takes is one climate-science denier to change 50% of the population’s opinion. Or to convince the public that one pro-vaccine comment is the scourge of humanity.

EDIT: Just got a downvote and reflecting on how the down-vote makes me feel; how should I proceed? Should I defend my comment? Do I want more social karma on this website? Am I being punished for my opinion. How’s that for some introspection…

Hmm come to think of it cigarettes are actually a social network of sorts. At least in the beginning :)

they create the need for breaks from anything from work to recreational activites, and provide opportunities for interaction with like-minded humans. I'd say that qualifies, and although I never liked smoking and am grateful to have dodged that bullet, I always envied the natural icebreakers that smokers had when stepping outside of a place to smoke with random others.

I started smoking for this reason and considered it a benefit at the time. But after quitting you come to realize that the camaraderie is covering up the fact that you're all out there killing yourselves instead of doing something better with your time; and you need to find other smokers because everyone else can't stand the way you smell.

Replace that spot where you go to smoke with a foursquare court and dare your boss to tell you you can't take as many foursquare breaks as the smokers get. Foursquare is fun and you and your group will invent your own rules and it'll turn into your own game that's way more fun than smoking cigarettes. Most places now, you can smoke a joint or a weed pen if you really need the physical act.

There's this idea that if you smoke you get extra breaks - bring it up in a reasonable way with any manager and you can have those breaks, too. And thank the few folks sacrificing themselves so that the rest of us can say we get as many breaks as they do.

Edit: a benefit I miss is excusing myself from an uncomfortable situation because I "need" a cigarette. But, without that crutch, I developed better GTFO strategies.