100% agree. Why even question the business model if that's not a product that I would use. First should be "Can I use it?"(meaning does it run on my devices etc.), then "Do I find it useful?" before anything else.
If I know the price is something I'd be willing to pay for a thing that is useful, I evaluate as such. If I know that it's a price I'd never pay, I still want to see what it is and try it because I'm curious. Don't hide information from me.
Example: enterprise licenses that are meant for a huge org rather than an individual let me know that I shouldn't get excited about a tool because it's not for me. Happens a lot because I'm very into networking and automation.
SSR can be a game-changer in domains like e-commerce. But completely useless for some other use case.
RSC advantages are a bit more complex to explain, because even a simple portfolio website would benefit from it. Contrary to the common belief created by long-term ReactJS dev, RSC simplifies a lot of the logic. Adapting existing code to RSC can be quite a mess and RSC is a big change of mindset for anybody used to ReactJS.
> Protecting more established interests but kneecapping progress.
I assume you must be American. I always find it funny that there is that US belief that Europe is "old-fashioned" with "old tech" and "old progress". I never encountered anyone yet to tell me what progress wasn't in Europe that was in the US.
I actually think this is a bit backward, with US lack of transportation funding, more people struggling with poverty, backward ecological measures, and missing health care with lower life expectancy.
I feel like high intelligence is crippling itself, the more intelligent you are and the more issues to solve you find and the more conscious of your environment you become, awaking you to new sets of information and again, new sets of issues.
This overflow might contribute to less happiness as a result.
Same thing, not a psychologist, just some thoughts.
I know someone with a small business that applied for Venmo Business account (which is the main payment method in their community industry) and Venmo refused to open the account and didn't provide any reason as to why saying that they have the right to choose to refuse providing the service, which they do. But all the competitors of that business in the area do have a Venmo and take payment this way so it is basically a revenue loss for that person.
It's a bit frustrating when a company becomes a major player in an industry and can have a life and death sentence on other businesses.
There are alternative payment method but people are use to pay a certain way in that industry/area, similarly there are other browsers but people are used to Chrome.
Same thing with Paypal - I opened a business account, was able to do one transaction and was shut down for fraud. I tested a donation to myself. Under $10. Lifetime ban.
That’s not unique to PayPal. Pretty much any payment processor that detects a proprietor paying themselves is going to throw up a red flag for circular cash flow fraud and close the account. Bank-operated payment processors are often slower to catch it, but they will also boot you for this.
real payment processors also you just call on the phone and they fix it. That's not a real problem. we do test orders on many go lives per year and never see this. Yes there are sandboxes, but you always gotta test real transactions by the end.
My bank displays me a popup warning me to check who I'm sending money to every time I make a transfer. If I've made that same transfer before, after showing that, it's also telling me that it won't ask for 2FA for this transfer, because I've made it so many times before.
High quality or even medium quality software and UX is getting harder and harder to find.
I sold some camera equipment on eBay once. PayPal flagged my account as fraudulent, asked for a receipt for the equipment which I did not have (I bought it years before), so they banned my account indefinitely.
Randomly, years later, they turned it back on. Thanks, I guess?
> Traumatic experiences are particularly memorable because the brain wants to make sure you learn your lesson.
Weird, I have always been told that when the brain is functioning "normaly" (outside of disorders/syndromes, such as PTSD) that it has a tendency to forget bad things, to help us get over traumatic experiences.
I don't think they mean literally traumatic, but more like a bad breakup, or falling out of a tree. You survive -- maybe barely -- but its no more traumatic than a scrape or a bump. I still remember the first "major" injury I have (from jumping off a the top of a car at 4 years old). Not like it was yesterday -- no PTSD there -- but it was the first time I scraped my knee. I'll probably never jump off a car again.
I think it was more meant as the society is ignoring it like a trauma that no one wants to talk about. This results in missing learnings on decisions that were taken back then.
It might not be that wrong. After all, programming languages are a way to communicate with the machine. In the same way we are not doing binary manually, we might simply not have to do programming too. I think software architecture is likely to be what it should be: the most important part of every piece of software.
You’ve got it wrong. The machine is fine with a bit soup and doesn’t care if it’s provided with punch card or python.
Programming was always a tool for humans. It’s a formal “notation” for describing solutions that can be computed. We don’t do well with bit soup. So we put a lot of deterministic translations between that and the notation that we’re good with.
Not having to do programming would be like not having to write sheet music because we can drop a cat from a specific height onto a grand piano and have the correct chord come out. Code is ideas precisely formulated while prompts are half formed wishes and prayers.
It's more a matter of "how much" personally, I knew it was not reliable but I thought it would be around 5-10% and recently more around 20%. I was far from thinking close to 75%!!
reply