rafaelcosta

Today I learned! The aspx and the lack of branding really had me fooled. And when the Google branding came along, that’s when it started to go down in my circle, so I never knew that it was a Google (20%) project!

Orkut was HUGE. Google acquired it and it basically had *the* social media platform in Brazil pre-Facebook. IIRC, it also had a big-ish market share in some other countries. When Facebook came along, it was clear that Google was not doing as many updates as they needed to compete, so Orkut felt more and more "outdated".

They killed it after a while to replace with "something better". That was Google+.

I still think that it was one of the most impressive fumbles of a social media "monopoly".

I don’t think that it is reductionist at all. The examples provided are either qualified with “dedicated” or “many of”. It’s also not surprising at all that people who have an interest in driving the goals of the organization usually gravitate more to operational roles and people who have no interest in it at all gravitate towards organizational roles – but that’s not a rule.

I would totally be pissed as someone in an “organizational” role of someone reduced me to someone “not interested in the goals of the organization”, but magpi3 didn’t do that. They correctly stated a pattern. If you are around organizational/administrative people, ask yourself honestly if the pattern isn’t the least bit accurate…

”Facebook is paying out to creators of monetized content because that content is popular”

Would also work as a headline. But wouldn’t attract as many clicks I guess. The implication that Facebook is actively promoting a certain view point is disgusting, and old media loves to do that (even though they were historically the ones doing so). I’m all for local filtering (on some level) and preventing foreign interference on local political matters, and social media companies ought to do better. But I twist my nose at old media shamelessly trying to manipulate the views of people on tech. And this is Facebook we’re talking about here…

As it should. Date notwithstanding, I would actually enjoy if there was a manually induced latency penalty for "legacy IP" that needs to be manually turned off on Linux. I know some people don't care at all, but the internet was made to be addressable. IPv6 is the only shot we have to go back to that.

Is it just for me that `kmph` stood out? Seems like such a cursed way of saying kph or km/h.

Extremely bad timing on my end then, should've waited for a few more days

Source?

I don't get why this applies on the Cloudflare outage but not on the AWS ones... I'd argue that the big cloud providers are WAY more impactful when they go down than Cloudflare. The only difference is that the average techie uses Cloudflare more and sees the impact more, but this point was already there before...

AirDrop works via AWDL, I think you're just wrong...

There's a reason why this went from widely supported/used to... not so much. And even if most people claim it's big-co's locking down their ecosystems (which is partly true), the "extensibility" of XMPP allows for a very convoluted ecosystem with some servers supporting certain XEP and some not. Also, sorry, but XML just sucks to work with nowadays :(

Easy from your point of view... This is the argument I mostly hear from Apple folks, but my experience (especially with less tech savvy folks) is that they have no idea where or how to cancel a subscription on IAP and they think that the multiple "Apple" charges are just some iCloud thing or something along those lines. With Credit Card flows the alarm bells go off waaaay earlier: when a website asks for their CC data, they immediately scrutinize more (and thus, conversion rates are lower)

Right now, yes, but there's a potential to:

- Most legit services move to a web based Apple Pay (note to the unaware reader: this is NOT In-App Purchases and has never had 30% fees) due to the ease of implementing and lower fee (easier to do cross platform + web) - Non-legit developers keep the In-App flow

Over time this would skew In-App Purchases to be scammy-only (and therefore, easier to spot). I'm sure people at Apple consider this possibility too – and therefore, now that there's actual competition, IAP flows will probably have to change to prevent this and compete for actual developer preference (and keep it a viable legit-developer choice)

There's a whole class of sh*t-software that only exists (and is profitable) because users subscribe to them and then forget – primarily because the subscription fee is charged as "Apple" on their Credit Card. I wonder what's gonna happen with this type of scam.