jenga22

What the U.S. considers a practical problem often isn't. That is a shitty statement. The U.S. also considered spending 2T on a jet that was worse than the F-22. Just because the U.S. spends on something doesn't mean it has a practical application.

Nevertheless, the internet turned out to be transforming from its original purpose. We can sit here and argue about cyrptocurreny but the game is young and we wont know what it will turn into in 30 years. Just like the people in the 70 and 80s didn't know how transforming the internet would become for our society.

Right. I agree. I am also going one step further and arguing that crypto is more of a fan club then a cult. There are cults way stronger that illicit a far greater emotion reaction that crypto.

Even now, when the price is in the toilet, a lot of really smart people are having sane discussions across sub-reddits. And those very smart people are still checkin in code and making improvements.

This has happened before. During the BBS era and ARPA Net era, a lot of people said those things were "cute" and only used by underground cult figures. They said that people who believed in the "internet" were dillusional that a global network would ever happen. They also said that it would have limited impact on society. They said it would stay largely with universities. Newspapers laughed. Television networks laughed. Music companies shrugged it off. But the one thing I learned from both those eras is if there are a lot of smart people working in it then it is not to be discounted.

A lot of things are cults and it doesn't have to do much with social media or the behaviors he is outlining.

Apple - You can argue Apple, the hardware company, is a cult. The fans are rabid in their support for the company. Often the discussions are not at all civil and in this particular case there is no financial incentive.

Let's move even farther away.

There are cults for clothing companies. Companies that make drinks. Gaming companies. Youtube streamers. Heck, there even cults in processor companies.

Take for example AMD. I have had chats with people who just get livid when Intel vs. AMD conversations come up and I am thinking to myself "We are talking about CPUs right?".

There are even cults with Operating Systems. Just ask the nix vs. Windows folks. Those discussions get heated.

So I am not sure what he is trying to argue here. There will always be folks developing who will have a civil discourse and try to make the currency better and then there will be the peanut gallery. That comes with anything that gains wider exposure.

This is in very bad taste.

We do not know who the acquirer officially is yet. They are also assuming that MS has already ruined GitHub.

Based on what we have seen in the last few years from Microsoft, they are very serious about not messing up when it comes to developer tools and the ecosystem.

They are also showing a huge capacity for working across platforms and being supportive of the community as a whole. I don't know where the pieces fall, but this was in poor taste.

Not good GitLab.

Sure, one is an operating system and one is an API. In the literal sense you are correct.

However, You're completely arguing a point that is different from what the entire discussion is about. We're talking about proprietary control points. The iOS operating system is proprietary and the App store dictates who and who can't publish on it.

The same is the case with Twitter. It has APIs and they control who and who can't use them to make apps.

Both companies have invited developers to make apps. Both companies have benefited from having those apps make their services/devices useful.

It's the same thing. iOS is controlled by Apple. Twitter's API is controlled by Twitter. Both invite developers to develop on their platform so they can reap the benefit of increased user functionality.

Apple has now entered dangerous territory.

Over the last month they seem to have banned apps because some government out there didn't like that app. To make matters worse, those very same governments weren't happy with the app being removed from their regional app store but they demanded it removed from all app stores.

The VPN issue was a wake up call for a lot of developers. These apps were on the app store for years and because China didn't like these apps one morning, they banned it and referred to some arbitrary clause in the app store TOS.

The thing is this script has played out before. Twitter also had a vibrant ecosystem of third party developers. Those developers made Twitter into a billion dollar company. Then one morning, they decided certain classes of apps were not okay. This back and forth went on for months until there were barely any apps left. Twitter eventua

The same thing is happening with Apple. Several founders I've spoken to, all with big exits in the past, refuse to write apps first for Apple or Google because of the threat of getting "banned one morning".

Worse, VCs are now getting nervous in investing in startups where the app is the fundamental foundation of the business.

For any market to thrive, there needs to be transparency and stability. Just like Twitter, once developers are gone....they're gone. They won't come back and consumers will start wondering if the 1,000 dollar smartphone they purchased, with subpar apps, is really worth it.

The one thing that is good about this is that a lot of cities are now talking about rolling out their own broadband network. If Comcast does anything remotely as not adhering to the principles of net neutrality, then you are going to see even more cities talk about getting their own network.

Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another agency that Wall St. hates which was passed by Democrats. If anything, it seems that again Republicans are happy to pass laws that lowers taxes for Wall St. and removes regulation.

To your point, Wall St. donates to Democrats but it seems to have very limited effect compared to Republicans.

This is interesting. I wonder why only Republicans are targeted consistently for these types of laws that are blatantly bad for consumers and why it works on them. However, I am sure money has been offered to Democrats but what's the reason it never sticks?