I'm in the process of migrating away from my custom domain on Google (I'm grandfathered in from back when they offered it for free). So far getting all my old email, contacts, and calendar info FastMail has been seamless. All that's left is to repoint the DNS.
Like another comment, I too have a couple of services connected to "Sign in w/ Google". Until I actually delete my Google org, those will still remain active. Since I'm not paying, I feel OK about this.
Thanks, please could you email me at hi@smalldocs.org. I’m trying to learn how to make this a better experience for teams, so would love to work with you guys to optimise the experience.
Hate on the Claude desktop app on macOS all you want (I personally think it’s fine), but I don’t understand how
Gruber can think the ChatGPT app is that good. It’s also…fine, but certainly not special IMO, despite being a native app.
> I don’t understand how Gruber can think the ChatGPT app is that good. It’s also…fine,
It's not that ChatGPT is so good; it follows macOS design principles and functionality that have existed for decades. Claude Desktop sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t which can be a frustrating user experience.
It's the Mac version of OpenAI's Codex app where you see the night and day difference between the two.
I have gemini and chatgpt apps - I think gemini is electron app since i can three finger tap to get word definition. Neither can pinch to zoom, print (i.e. to pdf), run extensions, duplicate tab, etc.
I owned a Model Y for several years, but, at least in my city, I always felt Tesla’s navigation had pretty poor route selection during busy times of the day - like dorecting me to streets that were notoriously stop and go during rush our when the highway alternative was known to be much quicker.
I've always felt that Mark Zuckerberg got lucky with Facebook and that he has no real lasting talent as a technologist or visionary. He seems to attempt to chase the latest "it" thing and has very few original ideas that actual stick long-term. He's quite the charlatan.
I believe you when you say you didn't intend it that way, but unfortunately the meaning of a message has more to do how it lands than how it was intended—in the sense of the effects that it has on the receivers and also on the channel. Certainly from a moderation point of view we have to go by effects, not intent (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
It's not that you owe Zuckerberg or any other specific person better, but rather that you owe this community better if you're participating in it. (And by 'you' of course, I don't mean you personally, but all of us.)
um, I'm not sure exactly why what motivated that comment, but its extremely possible to believe every word there from a purely logical perspective, as opposed to an emotional one. yes we shouldn't post personal attacks, but saying 'Zuckerberg got lucky' and 'seems to chase the latest "it" thing' doesn't need to qualify as a personal attack. these can just be normal observations. see I wouldn't say the same things about sama, because I don't think they're true, and I dislike the both of them.
as for the newsguidelines, I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things
Much of the language in the GP is pejorative, and therefore emotional, and therefore not possible to treat "from a purely logical perspective".
I doubt that a purely logical evaluation is possible of any statement at all, outside of formal languages, but let's not digress. (Or maybe we should! it's at least more interesting to talk about than how $Billionaire-CEO just got lucky, lacks talent, or is a charlatan.)
> I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things
Yes, that's possible, but if one is venting indignation then one is doing something different.
To digress again: "intellectual curiosity" is a funny phrase, one I don't entirely care for - it verges on pretentious and reminds me of Hemingway's ten-dollar words*. But I've stuck with it because you can't just say "curiosity", because there are other kinds of curiosity and they are quite different.
> Much of the language in the GP is pejorative, and therefore emotional
It was stated to be an opinion and opinions are inherently emotional, so that goes without saying, but it is a fact that the account holds that opinion and learning about that fact should spark intellectual curiosity. It is a property of the state of universe along with all the others. There is no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity is limited to only a subset of universe properties.
Perhaps what this reveals is that HN does not attract a curious audience (anymore)? Does that suggest the guidelines are not in tune with the wants and needs of the user base? Trying to force curiosity to emerge does not go far if the users aren't curious to begin with.
Maybe it should, but you don't need much experience with the internet to know that a comment like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48648885 doesn't and won't. There's no need to look for deeper phenomena like mysterious shifts in the audience.
I suggest the proof is already to the contrary. To each their own, but I have found this to be quite intellectually gratifying. There are some compelling discussions taking place here, including but not limited to this one, that have not got caught up in indignation like originally hypothesized that they would.
The properties of the state of the universe are effectively infinite. Not all users will find curiosity in the same properties. It is understandable that you may not find the same gratification here. There is still no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity must be limited to a subset of those properties, is there?
While I know criticizing Meta is popular, I'm not sure I'd agree with above.
Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook. Understanding the potential market that could be created and turning down a $1B acquisition from Yahoo 20-years ago, at the time, seemed insane.
Also making the shift to mobile, when people thought that would be the death of FB is a remarkable story.
Identifying to acquire WhatsApp & Instagram, both laughed at when bought for the acquisition price at that time, now massive businesses for Meta (and their market cap value).
Meta AI glasses are surprisingly popular and growing. And more...
Note: I have no affiliation with Meta (not now or in the past)
---
EDIT: Many people I see underestimate what it takes to build a business. It is the classic “I could have built that in a weekend” critique. Maybe, but the product is only like 10% of the problem. 90% of the work (and hard part) is execution.
That's not true though. Social network sites existed, just not so "centralized" and "viral". Facebook created a simple and more user-friendly interface.
WhatsApp as it understand, does not make much if any money. Instagram is a cash cow due.
They have released some good open source technology, but as the OP said, Meta hasn't much going for it apart from addictive apps for showing ads
Social networks definitely existed, they just didn’t gain the same momentum/popularity as Facebook. As others have pointed out there was MySpace - but even before that there was Friendster and Asian Avenue. I’m sure there were probably another one or two.
That’s not to take anything away from the success of early Facebook, but the idea of a social network was not created by fb.
>Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook.
Seriously? Of course they did. An easy counter-example is MySpace, which launched several months before Facebook's very first appearance as a Hot Or Not mimic (which predates Zuck by 3 years), and had many millions more users for years (especially while FB was restricted to colleges).
Major competition and a lot of money was going into social media around then (and for a couple years prior), FB is just the eventual winner.
Those are fair points, though I didn't say he wasn't a good business person. I could probably concede that he is, but I don't see him as the tech visionary he's often propped up to be.
> Many people I see underestimate what it takes to build a business. It is the classic “I could have built that in a weekend” critique.
My dude, no one in your reply thread is making that claim. We bristling at the claim that "Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook". Unless you're saying FB's innovation is its business model and is what made it dominate, well, your original statement just didn't substantiate that.
IMO, the only thing I'd credit Zuck for is sticking (at least at the start) to his singular vision of what a social network should be; first it was just open for .edu emails, then when it was released more broadly their product roadmap stuck to fostering a social environment online.
And then he lost that vision. I'd say it was circa Cambridge Analytica when engagement---often ragebait because it gave them more and stronger of that sweet sweet monetizable ad signals---replaced fostering an online social environment. Others would say it's the algorithmic news feed. Either way, losing that vision started FB's demise.
IME, FB was best when it was a supplement and not a replacement for real life. FB had value to me because we could plan parties there and even keep in touch after, get that social buzz going for a little while longer. But it was _never_ the party.
But their recent efforts---Metaverse, all the AI crap---has all the hallmakrs of trying to replace real life. They now want to be the party but good luck with that. Judging by the blowback and lack of adoption consumers see what they're up to a mile away. Zuck has no idea how to stay relevant so now we have a platform more concerned with its market cap than having actual utility.
He was also a wealthy kid with connections. People place far too much weight on execution. Most of it is being in the right place at the right time and having existing connections.
I've never seen him saying anything particularly smart or insightful. My impression is that he has moderately above average intelligence and entrepreneurship. If he wasn't at the right place at the right time, he would be yet another founder of a random startup.
I've never seen him say or do anything particularly human. If I believed in such things, I'd think he was some kind of souless drone sent here by aliens/demons/etc to destroy humanity.
Your impression about his intelligence is way off. Mark was part of the study for mathematically precocious youth, which has a math cutoff at the 1/10K rarity. He also has ambition at the same level. What’s probably missing, of late, is good taste and judgment.
It is an impression, as you said. If his intellect is so vast (vs just scoring well on the math skill tests), we should have seen some sort of evidence in the things he writes or says. He was called a programming prodigy but we've seen other actual programming prodigies delivering much more impressive results (Bellard, Frankel, Carmack etc).
I don’t know what definition of intelligence you’re using, but scoring extremely well on math tests qualifying him for that study is fully aligned with the psychometric POV.
He built a hell of a machine for buying political/cultural influence or filling your sales funnel, no matter the dubiousness of your product, with pinpoint precision. Doing that takes vision and talent, and extremely flexible ethics.
In what way has he claimed special expertise to deceive others for financial gain, as befitting the word charlatan? He is the CEO of Facebook and we're told to not like Facebook, but when has he claimed special expertise to deceive others for financial gain? He's one of the richest people in the world and has been using that money to do things he wants to do. I don't think he's ever claimed to eg be a PhD AI researcher and for people to give him money because of a made up claim like that. People give Facebook money and it ends up in his pockets and he does things with that.
Perhaps “charlatan” in the literal sense isn’t true. I was speaking more colloquial, but that was lazy of me.
I will ask though, has he been honest when he’s testified before Congress? At best, I think we can say he hasn’t been very transparent many of those times. If that’s not for power and/or financial gain, what is it? [0]
I didn’t have to be “told” to not like Facebook or Meta. The company’s actions for well
over a decade and those of its executives, including the CEO, allowed to form that opinion on our own. I’d be willing to bet that experience is not unique to me.
You know how the most important skill of being a manager is to make your reports think that their ideas are their own instead of being told what to do, because it makes them more effective they want to do something rather than being told to do something? Yes, objectively, some actions Facebook has taken are bad. But I know we're not getting the whole story and someone's pushing an agenda. You're free to believe that you're forming your opinions on your own but the framing of facts does lead to seemingly obvious conclusions that aren't actually warranted when you look into the details. I am in no way saying that Facebook is good. Mark took certain actions which made people in the media have a vendetta against him, and so that's why we're hearing about them.
I dunno he made a few very wise purchases (Instagram, WhatsApp). But yeah he hasn't had a single first party hit apart from Facebook, and the Metaverse is 100% emperor's new clothes. Even worse than Alexa's "people will buy things through a janky voice interface right"?
I do a lot of my streaming with Apple TV, but the worst parts about the Apple TV app are in my opinion are:
- Too many promos of other shows before watching a show. This is often for shows I've already watched and am watching. Apple knows which shows I watch. It shouldn't need to give me promos for shows I've watched or am actively watching.
- Poor UX for "Play Next Episode" functionality. If I just finished an episode of a show and I click to watch the next episode, I don't need to see the recap of the previous episode or the intro.
- Speaking of intro, when you click to skip, it usually leaves you somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds from the end of the into, not actually after it.
reply