Funny that as Discord releases a light theme, Slack releases a dark theme.
But in seriousness, does Slack really have any value proposition over Discord beyond Screen Hero these days?
I switched my organization over to Discord based on the ability to create public channels for testers/customers to communicate with my team on the server without any role-based overhead (also because my target market is largely the Twitch/gamer crowd - most of whom already have Discord set up).
I understand that there are less integrations baked in, but most are easily worked around with webhooks.
It's not just the target market being the gamer crowd, its focus on promoting gaming content is beyond distracting for a work setting.
Take its font-and-center features:
- The primary page with all the game and stream ads has zero value for productivity.
- Its voice chat is great but not nearly as valuable as a video meeting integration.
- I don't need or want to know what application or game you have open right now or what music you're listening to. I just want to know if you're available right now or if not, when you will be.
Integrations, emphasized. Adding a swath of app integrations was a "wow" factor when Slack first came on the scene, and I've had very little trouble introducing Slack at organizations with minimal IT resources because of this. Setting up and maintaining webhooks is "too much" for a lot of people who can otherwise manage a Slack org.
I don't see why Slack would be more trustworthy than Discord when it comes to data privacy, when we're talking about a company that failed to disclose a breach for 5 years.
Discord doesn't have any integrations for Enterprise users, like SSO, retention policies, etc. Many large companies probably wouldn't be able to use it, not to mention we don't know what Discord is doing with the data (not that it is a bad chat tool, it's great, but only really useful for casual groups).
Maybe not for a small company, but I simply can't imagine it for a larger organization.
Even ignoring integrations/plugins/bots – of which Discord has almost nothing useful for product development – a huge issue with Discord is that you have no choice over which channels you are in. At Atlassian, we literally have hundreds of different Slack channels for various teams/products/whatever, and everyone has access to everything which isn't private. With Discord, that would get ugly really quickly.
In my eyes, that's the biggest reason I'd choose Slack over Discord. Legitimately, I think it's a better tool overall, but even for what I use Discord for, it's very annoying not to be able to leave a channel that you have no interest in. I can collapse/mute things, but it's still not super helpful when there are tons of them.
You could quote easily create a bot account that allows people to set their own custom role for specific channel access, though? There's API bindings for basically any language. Of course it's not as good as native access but if it's a big problem, creating a simple bot is a viable solution.
Just a sidenote - Discord has always had a light theme, they just revamped it recently. Sadly the light theme will never be usable until they change the color of rank names and such not. The majority of people use dark theme, so they make server icons and role colors that look good on dark theme, not light theme.
Ignoring the feature set, is data retention policy not a consideration? For us, we paste customer log data for debugging purposes, and Discord's lack of a clear enterprise data retention policy means that we're not assured customer data isn't winding up where it shouldn't be.
Honestly I couldn't care about gifs/emojis/themes/threads/etc, but also the lack of SSO means it's a giant security issue. What if one of your devs loses their password, and you can't mandate 2 factor because Discord sign in is out of your control?
After Hipchat died, I tried to get my company to move to Discord instead of Slack. We ended up not doing so, because Discord's TOS does not allow commercial use, only personal use.
Yeah, I've been making that argument since Musk and Bezos first announced their intentions (though I usually used terraforming Arizona as an example as that state has become one of the largest polluters per capita in the US).
But the argument that guys like Bezos and Musk are clinging to is that Mars presents an opportunity to continue the human race in an event of cataclysmic proportions (like another massive asteroid strike, the Yellowstone caldera erupting at a scale we hadn't anticipated, or global warming making Earth generally uninhabitable).
Being farther away from the Sun, Mars gets much much colder than Earth, but it never gets as warm (max temps are something like 60 - 70 degrees Fahrenheit). So it's substantially different than a place like the Nevada desert.
I don't argue that we shouldn't be trying to terraform Earth first and reduce our reliance on positive feedback loop functions like air conditioning, quite the contrary. And I do believe all the rocket launches involved getting people to Mars would likely accelerate warming here on Earth. But Earth and Mars are vastly different places that are very far apart, and I think that's the argument for colonizing Mars.
> Mars presents an opportunity to continue the human race in an event of cataclysmic proportions (like another massive asteroid strike, the Yellowstone caldera erupting at a scale we hadn't anticipated, or global warming making Earth generally uninhabitable).
Even in a worst-case scenario we're better off here. We have a pretty good idea where all the dinosaur-killer-sized asteroids are and none of them are on a collision course with earth. There is the possibility of a medium-size rock causing some very serious damage to infrastructure, but it's not going to make us go extinct. Likewise for volcanic activity. Even a dinosaur-killer-sized rock is survivable (for the species, not for civilization) by moving underground for a while until the dust settles.
Global warming is an existential threat to civilization, but not to homo sapiens as a species. We may have to go back to being hunter-gatherers in northern latitudes, but again, it's not going to make us go extinct.
Homo sapiens are just damned tough to exterminate.
Yeah I personally stopped buy chicken years ago for mostly ethical reasons but I think Costco getting into the chicken game will probably be a net positive.
Reason being that for one, Costco was one of the first grocers to start replacing items with Organic alternatives, and in general, they usually demands higher quality goods than other grocers. For example, compare the ingredient list for Delimex taquitos from Costco to your supermarket and it's basically half the size... or Campbell's "Simply" Chicken Noodle soup to what's sold at the grocer - again about half the ingredients. Even those $5 chickens Costco sells are antibiotic/hormone/steroid-free humane-certified Foster-Farms chickens.
Then there's employee treatment. Costco has a long history of being one of the better employers in the country. They pay their employees well, pay for people to attend college, don't require a lot of interaction with irate customers thanks to their no deadline any reason return policy and generally promote internally rather than hiring outsiders to leadership roles.
Compare that to the average chicken farmer who has to buy all of their own equipment that the big companies are constantly requiring them to update at their own expense, raise chickens they don't own like a horrific daycare center at very low return, all while being exposed to chemicals/drugs they're being forced to use and it's kind of a nightmare.
Costco cares about their brand image, their customers and their employees... I expect this will end up being a good thing.
If you eat meat, the most ethical thing you can do is eat Perdue chicken (assuming you're not going sustainable aquaculture seafood). Not organic, just regular. Because long before everyone else, they decided to do what they could to weed antibiotics out of their entire production chain.
As someone who grew up in the poultry pathology industry, there are three important metrics for commercial chicken meat production: (1) mortality rate (how many chickens die), (2) feed conversion ratio (how efficiently incoming feed is turned into usable meat), & (3) time to slaughter.
Everything else (price, environment impact) is a consequence of those figures or optimizations made to target them.
Perdue, long before it was trendy (~2002) decided for market and moral reasons they were going to reorganize their operations, and those of their suppliers, to apply pre-antibiotic husbandry best practices and limit antibiotic use.
It didn't save them money. Pre-emptive dosing with antibiotics is done precisely because it makes money (by decreasing loss / all cause mortality) -- if it didn't, no one would do it in the first place.
They didn't have to do this. Hell, most people didn't even care about antibiotics in animal production then.
But they did it because they thought there would be a market for it, because they thought it was possible, and because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Costco may be an ethical company, and they may be doing this for the right reasons, but they're following.
I'd rather reward someone who chose to lead in making the world a better place.
PS: There are other ecological reasons to prefer chicken if you're eating terrestrial meat, but I didn't want to ramble on. Suffice to say, the feed conversion ratio on chicken is incredible.
If you eat meat and aren't willing to stop, you should eat cows instead of chickens.
1. Eating beef is far more ethical than eating chicken.
1a) There's some (non-zero) probability that meat cows have net positive lives, while I don't think anybody I respect ever suggested that the current conditions of broiler chickens are potentially positive.
1b) Cows are way over 100x heavier than chickens, which means you need 2+ orders of magnitude more suffering/dead chickens to supply the same amount of calories from eating chickens as eating (potentially even net positive) cows.
1c) The environmental harms of different meat animals is far smaller than either the direct ethical costs or the financial costs. You can look into carbon offsetting for example.
2.You might think that you have no moral imperative to create net positive lives, only to avoid really bad cases of animal abuse. I assure you that really bad cases of animal abuse do in fact happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/opinion/nicholas-kristof-...
3. You might believe that chickens are not sentient and do not have morally relevant experiences. This is a complicated topic but I would argue that even if you only have a 10% chance of chickens having morally relevant experiences (and 90+% that they don't is far from justified given the state of current evidence), not eating chicken is still the right thing to do under most reasonable models of uncertainty.
4) You may believe that sentience is not a morally relevant criteria, and that there's a form of Human Exceptionalism where morality is defined to be about humans. Perhaps you only care about the environment for its effect on humans. If this is the case, I will be shocked if personal diet for ecology reasons is "the most ethical thing you can do" to preserve the future of humanity.
___
In general, while I applaud attempts to do moral reasoning in taboo tradeoffs, I find reasoning that ignores the highest number of beings suspect. (I feel the same way when economists debate the cost-effectiveness of immigration while entirely skipping the impact on immigrants).
I don't go on HN often, so apologies if I don't respond to comments too quickly. Good luck with thinking this through clearly! :)
1ab) Based on my experiences, I am prepared to discount the mental suffering of broiler chickens. I would not do the same for cows (or pigs). This is based on my beliefs about their intelligence, coupled with their lifespans.
Would it impact your moral calculus if we artificially retarded broiler chicken's intelligence?
1c) To me, the carbon and land use impacts dominate the direct ethical costs. With a ~1:4 carbon footprint ratio of chicken:beef, and taking into account my (1ab) opinion, that's enough to offset the individual mind count concern.
2) I value animal life conditions in a net utilitarian manner. Providing humans sustenance and pleasure in the form of edible protein is weighed against animal conditions.
3) What are the consequences of making an incorrect decision that cause you to weigh the 10% so heavily?
4) Including the qualifying "if you eat meat" phrase in my quote and the context of the comment thread (organic, chemical / drug use), I think my statement is pretty clear. To expand, "If you eat meat, the most ethical thing you can do is support a chicken producer who attempted to eliminate mass-dosing with antibiotics from their entire production chain."
--
You'd probably be interested in Peter Singer (see updated copies of Animal Liberation) and the debate between absolute, preference, and hedonistic varieties of utilitarianism.
I got a similar hit on Wikipedia when I tried to start the article on a company, which happens to be a YC alum. I was just comparing VPS providers, I knew this company was in the space because of HN, and noted the hole in Wikipedia, so I started the article as a way to fill in my own knowledge. Ho. Lee. Sheeeit. There were some admins looking to grind serious axes about "commercial influence". Yet I was behaving more like Consumer Reports. Job got done, but wow.
Costco does all these pro-consumer, pro-sustainability, and pro labor things while still undercutting everyone else on price. And they still make money hand over fist. It proves that every other company mistreating their livestock, filling their preserved goods with god-knows-what, or underpaying their staff is doing it out of pure profit motive rather than out of necessity to remain competitive.
Well, maybe -- Costco benefits from economies of scale and negotiation that don't exist for those smaller vendors. It doesn't cost everyone the same price to produce the same product.
Costco earns almost all of their profit from the membership fees and tries to keep all the product sales at break even pricing. Which makes their future precarious as the average member age is 50+, explaining the missing technology focus compared to say WalMart Labs or Amazon. They send Costco employees out to the farms to inspect every stage of the meat process, from raising the animals to the slaughter and packaging to ensure the quality. Disclosure: former IT employee at Costco HQ.
Surely most retailers only carry a fraction of the UPCs as Walmart does. Amazon beats Walmart, but who else? Wikipedia estimates 120,000 items per Walmart location and 35 million sold by Walmarts online. In comparison, McMaster-Carr has 570,000 products. Walmart is huge.
My experience buying off-brand Cheerios is that the texture is very different: much crunchier. They're one of the few products where I don't just buy the cheap store brand version.
> just because it's inconvenient for you doesn't make it their obligation to stop
Yeah, the thing is, having to cancel services tends to be inconvenient by nature. Usually when someone signs up for something it's because a) they're trying it out to see if it makes sense for them or b) they intend to be a paying customer.
It seems like MasterCard is addressing "a" here which is massively commendable. Companies don't need to auto-charge after a trial period ends, and it seems dishonest to do so. Services like Pandora will just take some functionality and inject advertisements after the trial payment ends or you miss your monthly payment.
Regarding "b", churn is a massive problem for businesses and if my company is doing something to alienate my customers, I would be trying to figure out how to reconcile the issue and retain them instead of trying to force payment on a single month of service and potentially drive them to file complaints against my business.
It sounds like Twiddla might be the exception to the rule and is commendable for that - I've never heard of a company offering to refund months of service fees, but most businesses aren't like that. And to a consumer, that unexpected $5 charge might include $35 of overdraft/NSF fees from their bank that they have to reconcile - to people on a budget, that might be a lot. And some companies will try to recharge the account again and again. I know from experience that DigitalOcean reattempts charges every 2 days for a missed payment without any reference to that in the TOS, even if you have emailed them agreeing to pay the full balance before their account suspension deadline and request that they stop the arbitrary recharge attempts, which can end up costing hundreds for a missed $10 payment.
And these sorts of practices don't generate any extra revenue for the service provider, but they may generate needless churn. It ends up turning into a massive headache for something that was totally avoidable - and it usually ends up hurting the people with the least money the most.
The current government shutdown is a perfect example of why we should be careful about our billing practices.
I was using Ubuntu exclusively for around a decade too. It's a great development environment. But about a year ago I needed a new laptop and with the one I purchased, some things didn't only require extra steps to get working, some of them were no fix issues until some indeterminate date in the future.
You mention the fingerprint reader not working out of the box - with my laptop, Fingerprint GUI was basically waiting on one of its dependencies to somehow figure out how to integrate my fingerprint scanner. Things like my active-stylus capable touchscreen weren't supported, and there were no applications to really utilize it even if it was.
I switched to Windows as my primary OS when I realized Windows PowerShell had basically become on par with Linux in almost every degree and that VS Code was as cushy as I could hope for in a development environment. The only thing I've found that isn't supported out of the box is Redis, but I downloaded a ridiculously lightweight version of Ubuntu from the Microsoft store (we're talking <1 MB memory footprint) with one click and was then good to go.
The other thing that really impressed me was all the easy to use tuning software. With ThrottleStop I was able to easily under-volt my processor to completely eliminate things like thermal throttling and improve performance all while greatly improving my battery life. Nvidia support is also way better so I can turn off my graphics card for anything but games - and then there's MSI Afterburner to under-volt my GPU when I am using it.
And yeah, not only do my fingerprint scanner and stylus work on Windows, but Windows has Windows Ink built in so I can easily take screenshots of whatever I'm doing with Snip & Sketch and annotate them with a pen in an instant, and I can use Sketchpad like an on the fly whiteboard when I need to do some math.
Plus, it has art programs like Krita that basically turn my laptop into an iPad Pro when I feel like getting artistic.
And with programs like Enpass, I can use my fingerprint with Windows Hello in place of my master password for stuff like logins and credit card information, which is a lot more secure for someone like me that does a lot of my work from coffee shops.
I still love Ubuntu, but all the offerings of Windows 10 has kind of made me a Windows fanboy and even makes MacOS seem like a decisive downgrade.
I know security is hard and i like to skirt it sometimes as well, but i still think it should be pointed out that a fingerprint should not be used as a password for security critical data. Its at best a username, as you can't change it and a motivated person can trivially steal it.
Not trying to discourage you from using it like that. Its perfectly fine as long as you realize that the fingerprint is only secure against random people on the street or just not very competent attackers... which is fine and is probably enough for most scenarios!
but now on the topic itself... the windows subsystem for linux is perfectly fine for a lot of things, there are quite a few issues however. All files accessible from windows will have 777 for example, there are a few applications that have issues with that. daemons exit as soon as the last terminal closes is another thing many people have to stumble upon.
and ymmv on the issues you mentioned. everything you mentioned is completely uninteresting to me, personally. a good window manager such as i3wm offsets pretty much every shiny-ness windows 10 has for any development purposes.
i do use windows for anything else though. (and am sadly forced to use it at work as well)
It's sort of an after-install thing that takes a minute, but I have some keyboard shortcuts that allow me to do things like jump into a sketching program with the current clipboard contents. And Krita itself (and a few other good apps) are available on Linux.
Not sure how Throttlestop compares to the latest Linux options. I've got many containers going, three instances of vscode, a zillion tabs, performance is not an issue.
But, I realize not everyone cares about a free and transparent world, even when it's more and less as good. It must at least encourages companies like Microsoft to keep opening up and getting better.
I'm referring to increased symptoms of anxiety, psychosis and increasing normalisation of weed as an every day thing.
I specifically mean smoking weed, watching TV and living a more "relaxed" lifestyle (which isn't inherently bad) over doing things that might me seen as productive, both in a traditional sense (school, work) and in a personal development sense (hobbies, friendships, health).
I know that there's a very big chance that it's just a correlation, and not a causation. In these specific cases, it really did feel like weed did make things a lot worse. There were long stretches of time where one of my friends in particular would stop smoking (conscious decision) and mental health stuff would get better.
Trying to make the software "theirs" seems to be an issue at Google, at least with their open source software and has seemed to have lead to it being less reliable.
For example, Angular Material v1 was one of the most complete and stable front-end packages on the market a few years ago. Then, back in 2017 the lead developer for the project was replaced with a new dev.
This new dev then went about assigning every issue and pull request to himself, modifying or rejecting pr's that had previously been approved, closing issues that had in progress pr's as won't fix, locking discussions, and just generally breaking stuff. (I've personally had to peg my project to v1.4 because everything since 2016 has been a regression)
If you go to the Angular Material v1.x Github page today, you'll see the same dev on pretty much everything.
This isn't productive ownership as it prioritizes the engineer over the customer and has lead to a generally broken system from one of the most stable properties out there. Not to mention, these open-source projects are most people's first exposure to Google's code... Having them be unpredictable regarding the functionality of their software with little concern for users/contributors in the name of making their devs feel special seems like a bad model to learn from.
Eh... There was a toll lane added from just outside Boulder part way to Denver. This has not generated more traffic, but it has generally speed up the road (sometimes to an undesirable extent as faster moving vehicles make more noise).
They didn't change the two lane in each direction structure, they just added another lane on each side which can only be entered/exited around exits.
A couple things I've noticed, most mid-day traffic occurs in clumps. You can usually take one segment of toll road for $0.35 and exit back into a mostly empty highway. Also, the toll lane people usually move above the speed limit. This speeds up traffic in general because people seem to tend to move into the right lane when someone blasts past them. A few people do it and most slow drivers will get the idea. And it also discourages lane switching which is a significant contributor to traffic. Once you're in the toll lane, you're committed to it until the next exit.
The problem with just arbitrarily adding more lanes is than lane switching is a major cause of traffic. Every time someone switches a lane because their lane is too slow, they usually cause the car behind them to have to slow down which causes a ripple effect. Add this to complexity of an 8 lane freeway and you may have created a nightmare for travelers. Granted in over populated areas like much of CA, congestion is somewhat unavoidable. (I grew up in the LA area)
I use Trello to stay on task, easy to manage daily to-do lists while being able to just push everything to the next day and also managing long-term lists. It lets you comment, add files or links, create internal check-lists for each card, has the option for due dates, even integrations for stuff like Slack. It's great for keeping track of stuff in general. Plus it has a really friendly UI and it's free for the base package.
Asana is what we used at my last company and it's pretty much the same (at least from what I remember) with a different UI.
Another neat productivity thing I use is the Sketchpad app in the Windows Ink Workspace. My laptop has a touch screen that works with an active stylus. The app basically turns my laptop into a whiteboard on the fly (really handy for when I need to work out some complex math) and I can save a snapshot to then stick into Trello or wherever. Only gripe - Microsoft should add two-finger drag support (like in art programs like Krita) so you're not limited by you monitor size when using it.
I think you're missing a lot of what contributed to Fortnite's success. Namely their ripping off of pretty much every one of Valve's most lucrative decisions of the past 10 years and in principle - Free to play.
Fortnite was pretty much a failure when it first launched. Sure they copied PUBG's last-man-standing game mode, but what really made it take off was that you didn't have to pay for the game.
You could get it, play it, and then upgrade or not upgrade your character as you desired. This is what made it so wildly popular with its base audience of 7-15 year olds. They can't drive, they don't have money, they might have hyper controlling parents that won't let them go out and be proper kids, but if they have a desktop and a reliable internet connection, they can be a part of this game. That's a big selling point for kids. Not to mention if they watch Twitch/Youtube, it would appear to be a potential career path for them to sit on their ass consuming content in an interesting way as they see people like Ninja and Muselk getting rich.
As for Fortnite's financial success, again I think this comes down to them ripping off Valve - principally Team Fortress 2. When Valve made the game free to play in 2011, they added other monetization mechanisms like premium cosmetics and taunts. This is exactly how Fortnite has become so huge.
Instead of having major entrance barriers like having to own a console or forking over $60 - $100 for a game. You can get it for free and maybe pay a few bucks here or there when it suits you. And parents love it because it gives them a passive way to control their kids at little to no cost. (Unless their the absurd type of people who pay for Fortnite tutors)
Not that Gabe Newell or Valve need the money, but Epic has ripped off almost everything from other games for Fortnite. With their massive budget they're basically like Facebook in that they can steal any concept to be produced in house and fight legal battles as necessary. And I think their success compared to what they've ripped off is largely a matter of timing with the rise of services like Twitch, Youtube and Discord than anything specific to their IP.
Not even a desktop; a phone, tablet, console, and god knows what else they release it on.
I think another major contributor to Fortnite’s success is the scale of cross-platform play that we’ve rarely seen before. Chances are if you have a thing that can connect to the internet, that thing is capable of running Fortnite.
They’re like Facebook not just because they have the money to steal any concept and build it in house, but because in some ways they are a social network. It’s as much as a game as a platform to hang out with your friends and chill.
Yeah definitely. When I said "a desktop" I was trying to say pretty much any desktop, even you mom's 15 year old Dell Dimension desktop, which many phones these days are more powerful than - and the majority of Fortnite's players are younger than.
I also agree about the social network angle, the one area Epic has really shined is their season and special event model. While other games have special events and it's really nothing new, the consistency with which Epic produces them creates a constant buzz around the product. Like rugrat water-cooler talk. And some of their events only last a day or two, so if you take a week off for a vacation, you may miss some major thing that your friends may be talking about for who knows how long. Granted this might be intentional addiction fostering aimed at kids by Epic.
Unreal Engine works on linux, and Fortnite used to work through wine, but because of their anti-cheating system it's broken now, and their CEO doesnt seem to have any plans for the linux version, he has some weird stance [1] on that.
Awesome comment! One thing I have problem with is that you keep saying "ripping off" or "steal". There really shouldn't be any shame in taking 2 existing good ideas and using them to make something better, something widely successful.
TF2 or PUBG could've done this but didn't, fortnite did, and nailed it, and now we all get to benefit.
One thing I'm glad they didn't "rip off" from Team Fortress 2 are the gambling loot boxes where you pay $2 for one try which has a 0.02% chance of netting you a $1500 item.
What’s your point? Fortnite combines elements from many other games and you call this a ripoff? This is how "art" is created in many cases. F2P has been around for a long time, so what?
I'm going to make an assumption and say that you may have strong feelings against Fortnite, and maybe feel as though it has wronged other longstanding titles. This may be incorrect, but regardless your statements regarding Fortnite and Epic Games are a bit misleading.
To begin with, comparing Fortnite to what Valve has been doing lately is a bit strange. Valve has recently focused less on being a developement company and more on their platform/marketplace (Steam) which is the primary driver of their success. Valve in the last few years has been for the most part fairly been irrelevant in the game development industry. A more apt comparison would be Epic and Bluehole (which both created the most popular Battle Royales).
You also state that that Fortnite was both a "failure when it first launched" and "what really made it take off was that you didn't have to pay for the game." Fortnite's Co-Op PvE ran an alpha back in 2014[0], and only entered Early Access in 2017[1] (which cost $40). By no metric was it a failure, and comparing the pre-free to play numbers to after it got popular (with a totally different gamemode) is unfair. Fortnite's free to play battle royale gamemode was not a failure and grew extremely quickly after it's release[2].
What made the game popular with its base audience (initially popular with adults and teenagers and only later being picked up by kids) was the fresh and unique take on a new genre (Battle Royale) that was extremely easy to pick up. It definitely wasn't that they could upgrade their character's cosmetics, a option available in basically every multiplayer. Fornite's financial success does come from selling cosmetics, but implying that cosmetics in video games was an idea developed by Valve is laughable. Sales of virtual goods in video games has a very long history[3].
Fortnite popularized (and capitalized on) a fresh genre, which combined with a low barrier to entry, revolutionized the gaming industry and generated immense wealth for Epic, which struck gold with the game. If it wasn't Fortnite, another well made Battle Royale could have easily overtaken the genre in a similar manner. Fortnite was simply in the right place, at the right time, with the right devs. And they've been rewarded handsomely for it.
But in seriousness, does Slack really have any value proposition over Discord beyond Screen Hero these days?
I switched my organization over to Discord based on the ability to create public channels for testers/customers to communicate with my team on the server without any role-based overhead (also because my target market is largely the Twitch/gamer crowd - most of whom already have Discord set up).
I understand that there are less integrations baked in, but most are easily worked around with webhooks.