ralston

Was just talking with friends yesterday about this - Internet Computer getting absolutely dumped by the VCs who pumped it so hard from the beginning. Once I saw that they were headquartered in the Bay, had their entire team in the Bay, and wanted to be the “everything for everyone” computer, that was kinda my sign that this was a scam.

Only if there was a Gavin Belson in this version

The idea of the NSA googling `lemon graph` then saying "Welp, looks like someone else already has it. Back to the drawing board", is actually pretty hilarious.

I agree with the general sentiment of the article: "In order to make money, Snapchat is doing things it previously scorned"

This is particularly saddening for me because I remember back in 2011/12 (around that time) I desperately wanted an Iphone so that I could do one thing - download Snapchat. I wanted a totally new/expensive phone to do one single thing - use Snapchat. Sure I was 19, and it was slightly known as the sexting app but man oh man, there was this sort of aura of mystery surrounding it. It was literally the "coolest" app in my peer group (hell, in my age group at the time). It was soooo difficult to search for people, so you had to know their user before you could add them. It was as if the app was so public (sharing pictures that could be screenshot), yet so private (you tended to only add people you knew, and the porn accounts).

It's slightly funny to watch Evan Speigel still think that he knows whats best for Snapchat (e.g., the UI changes, monetization). He makes his changes now and tells the users to shutup and deal with it (bad idea). Now that I'm older, everyone I know still uses the app, but not nearly as much, and it's not nearly as "cool" or fun. It seems to be just another app on our phones now - not "the" app.

But in some ways I understand Snapchat's changes. Those servers, engineers, creatives, and yellow bikes cost money. You can't pay for an office lease in Venice Beach with "cool" points. However, with that said, I do think Snapchat went overboard with the monetization efforts. They followed in the footsteps of Google, Facebook, etc - not knowing that they were so much cooler and so much more fun than anyone else. And in trying to monetize, they ruined the experience, and thus the app. The "scale" thing [gives Reid Hoffman a side eye] doesn't always have to apply to everything. Sometimes just having an amazing app that does what it does is ok - the partnerships, click bait, and "publishers" be damned.

RIP Snapchat. The only app I've ever bought a brand new to device for.

> "this generation wasn't ready for this boom of communication we are living in"

I definitely think we will look back on my generation (Generation Y) as the guinea pigs for this whole "connected social world" thing. So far it's been too much, too fast, and we have done an abysmal job handling it.

The UI looks incredibly good. Is this just implemented in pure JS?

Hilarious quiz. Thanks for the laugh

> "If you got a downvote, it wasn't from me."

> "EDIT: just checked. Downvote was mine. Sorry for this comment claiming I didn't."

XD (slightly funny to read those sequentially)

While I agree with the general/intended sentiment of "Advertising is has changed from a bunch of slick white guys in suits, to tech", it might be worth pointing out that Don Draper doesn't _exactly_ have anything to do with what the author is discussing. The author implies that ad tech is ruining _traditional_ advertising, which is true on the Sales side, but have you seen some of the high PPC/CPM ads on some Youtube videos? They still _heavily_ rely on great creative. And let's not forget that Don Draper was the Creative Director - not head of Sales (which would've been Pete I believe).

I share the sentiment. Sadly it appears as if Spotify is pulling a Snapchat - "We know what's best for our users, their opinions be damned".