faceyspacey

I've been wondering about the connection between the "curling effect" and the exponential curve of e for a while. Do you have any links where I can learn more in depth?

Just never pay the debts bro. Forget that shit and let it all go, and start stacking to live a debt free stress free life.

can you link that post you're referring to?

My guess is Libra (and everything else going on in the crypto world) will have 5 years before FedNow is out. A lot can happen in that time.

In theory, yes. But in practice, binary “caring” is impossible—of course the amount of caring exists on a spectrum.

The point is you can care LESS (than in the past) as an effective productivity tactic.

Can you elaborate on the cease and desist? Is there a patent on daily meditations. Sounds hardly "mindful" (without knowing the details).

Agreed, except: he likely can't because the other guy is a jerk. There's some people who just missed the REASONABLE DNA strand.

None of this means they can’t honorably charge $500 for crap coins instead of giving away that work for free.

They can make a fair business out of it where they add a few optional addons and value adds.

Just because we think they are crap and arrogantly feel confident that no non-technical get-rich-minded joe smoe will derive any value (or perhaps "deserves" to) from it doesn’t mean that he/she won’t in fact benefit from it. One man’s trash...

And besides, there are lots of purposes for small independent coins/currencies: reward your kids for doing dishes as someone else pointed out, arcades, company rewards, etc. We may very well end up in a world with infinite currencies that interoperate with each other, thereby giving individual control back of our closest surroundings.

As far as YN’s principles, it’s PR rhetoric. It’s far from representative of the ultimate truth of the intentions and actions of all those involved. In practice, it exploits goodwill to make money for a few. I'm also not all that sure that's a bad thing either.

The devil is always in the details, and as programmers, we must look at them.

Obviously I’m someone who thinks it would be more beneficial if profiting wasn’t demonized. It leads to more disengenuity, which is worse.

There’s nothing wrong with putting your own survival first and desiring to make so much money you never have to worry about it again. The hamster cage is a waste of our lifetimes and very hard to permanently get out of. And if we are so capable to escape, we will surely be able to give back a whole lot. ..you know, like on how airplanes you put on your oxygen mask first before your child’s.

But yes, there’s a flip side: people get obsessed with making money, doing deals, creating things that new jacks would create anyway. It becomes an unhealthy addiction, and the giving back never really happens. I don't think a lot of people see this for what it is as it takes over their lives. Apps and technology become far overvalued.

I think demonizing making money will continue to create the rift that obscures the balanced middle path here. I also think a lot of people who promote how they aren't money-obsessed are obsessed with something else: how good and noble they APPEAR (which I'm not sure is as "real" as BEING good and noble). Likely, it was just too hard for them to get out of the hamster cage (reads: they're lazy), and gave up. Now they work medium energy days for some employer that drives the ship. I know this much: I refuse to spend the majority of my life hustling for survival, or even worse: being someone else's tool waiting for the clock to strike 5pm each day.

The path to me is clear: grind your ass off, get yours, then give back; be conscious and don’t get addicted to anything in your life. The world doesn't need our saving (it's going to continue spinning as an infinitesimal part of a far larger universe); question your intentions, focus on yourself, as they say.

So open source built and invested in to eventually attain money is a bad thing in your opinion? What would that mean exactly? Only large companies that release a few bits as open source is palatable in your opinion? Smaller companies or individuals with a passion and vision for evolving our tools can't structure a strategy to eventually make money from it so they can keep doing it?

At the end of the day, I think it's the perfect model. Especially, when those building the open source, keep what was free before FREE, and simply go even FARTHER to build auxiliary stuff that costs.

This logic just bugs me every time. It's not akin to "selling out" as if you're making art/music, and then you dumb it down for the masses. It's finding the only way to make it work where you can directly and exclusively focus on much-needed tooling, rather than typical non-developer products like Uber or Facebook. And sometimes you don't care about building non-developer products--you just want to build developer tools (because you've gotten obsessed with it and you see what would benefit your fellow developers), and you need to find a way to make a living off of it, or pay the people you've brought on board to attain this long-term vision.

In short, it's a win win for everyone.

And by the way, the fact that you even had to say "[you] knew it was coming" is ridiculous. They at like month 1 of their work on this open source stuff had a paid analytics service. Their paid out service has been out for a very long time. It was as transparent as can be what their strategy is. The amount of work their large team of developers have done could be accomplished no other way.

Ultimately your perspective here, I'm sorry--and this is my perspective--does a lot of harm to the community. If everyone had this perspective in earnest (and I'm not even sure you do), it simply would mean less tools we desperately need. It would be fantastic if we could find more cashgrabs for developers to focus on tooling--there's just so much to be done.

I agree. I also think Twitter's in a rough place for one reason: 140 characters doesn't make sense anymore. But dropping it would be even scarier for them, as that's been their defining thing for so long.

When did 140 chars make sense? In the beginning of the social internet 10 years ago. For people new to sharing, it relieved pressure around saying something. For psychological reasons the false restriction made sharing on the internet frictionless. When the expectation is intentionally low, you don't have to worry if you're sharing enough or too little. And perhaps more subconsciously, such a low limit just kind of speaks to you, saying: "just say anything, and spit out."

But now, people are very accustomed to sharing. They don't need these training wheels.

It seems to me, regular people don't use twitter. Only various professional niches. That's just a problem, and will result in Twitter leaking users from their staple niches gradually over time, and probably has been going on for a long time now.

So in short, Jack's job and the decision he has to make is a very hard one. They've been too scared to make the hardest of decisions, and very naturally as a result have only rolled out these minor attempts. It seems like a very logical sequence of events to me.

They gotta do something bold, or die.

I'm not saying removing the limit is the answer on its own. I think it's more of a symbol of a willingness and capability to get back in the game. Do that along with something totally fresh front-and-center within the feed, and they would have a good recipe for success. Make a big moment out of dropping the restriction, and see what happens. Hell, try it for 30 days, and see what happens as a grand experiment.

Still, sounds about right

Ultimately the declarative way of writing apps is objectively better and more predictable than the old mutable way :)

Now that said, I agree on the performance costs, and too wonder why Walmart is hellbent on this strategy, given the endless resources they have.

But at the end of the day, they have a head of engineering and need to make their lives simpler just like everyone else. If you know how to squeeze the performance out of RN/React, developing apps in the semi-FP declarative sate-driven way is a dream compared to all the old ways of client app development. People who's views are so against React/ReactNative usually haven't experienced it for themselves. I suggest really giving it try before making these comments which usually serve just to validate decisions already made. I.e. to make one's self feel better about sticking to the old ways. However, I totally understand what it feels like for new tools to pop up that put into question old ways I've invested a lot into. That said, don't you think you'd be better off fully exploring these ways before shooting them down? Don't tell me you have--zero people that have grokked the effectiveness of declarative state-driven programming make these remarks. They usually leave some hint at their experience with React. In short, it's only you left in the dust :)

Give the tools a try, which I know will likely be hard for you because you are likely coming from the Native world. I will say this: it's a lot more than just one language to make hybrid apps (i.e. like past tools such as Titanium). And, of course perf will be a challenge. That said, the perf is amazing given what it is. But more importantly, the style of development is what it's all about. It's so different and so much more predictable/debuggable than the old mutable ways. To me, it matters not that it's in JS. What matters is the declarative state driven way of development. If you can do that in native code, you're basically doing the most important aspect--and basically there's no argument from me there. There are some libraries that allow for that, but it's nowhere near the extent of what you can do in React/JS, given its ecosystem. I lot of work is being put in here to make this the best of breed future of application development. If you can't see it, you're missing out. Do your homework on React once and for all. You can thank me later.

Last point: Walmart's tool here is specifically meant for making apps where some of it you want in "actual native" and other parts in "react native." Without a doubt coding the React style is the best DX for UI development. AND without a doubt, "actual native" performs far FAR better. So what they have here is a toolbox for those with an "engineering mindset" to pick the best tool for the job. Everything that's happening is just getting better and better for all parties involved, no matter where your experience lies.