OldTimeCoffee

From the technical end, absolutely, way easier. From the design end, definitely not. Compare Nintendo's website in 2002[0] and today. Blue's News hasn't really changed layout in a long time and it looks substantially different than a more modern style like IGN which is much more difficult to reproduce.

I can take a video with my phone and upload it to YouTube from my phone. My phone camera can work surprisingly well in poor lighting conditions. I can spend < $100 dollars and get a couple of cheap ring lights and improve the lighting massively. If I wanted to make a spoof news show, I'd just need OBS and a good webcam or a cheap DSLR now. Way easier than in 2002 where I'd need a Video Toaster and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment.

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20020325234352/https://www.ninte...

It is based off it for sure, the credits are on the Github repository[0]. The CDN version has no comments, but the source JS file really should have the source in a comment.

[0]: https://github.com/tengbao/vanta

While cash is probably some component of it, it's a lot more difficult today to make a professional looking 'modern' website than it was 20 years ago. Conversely, it's a lot easier to make and edit a professional looking video for YouTube than it was 20 years ago. Video will win out when it's the easiest solution.

Google indexes and returns links to YouTube videos for queries now and will even point you to the relevant part if the video uses chapters.

Twitter has no impact on how websites are designed. I'm not sure anyone has optimized their website for Twitter engagement. No one is selling their services as a Twitter Rank Optimizer. There aren't thousands of websites on how to get better Twitter ranking results. No one has sued Twitter over linking to their site with a small blurb.

It's a comparative statement in response to 'twitter is killing the web'. Twitter has no impact over the web. Public discourse, yes absolutely. But it isn't impacting the web in the same way PageRank (or Google Search more generally) has changed how the web is made.

Google PageRank has done more damage to the open web than Twitter could ever hope to. At worst, Twitter's just exposed the worst qualities of people to a broader audience.

I think a system like how Slashdot moderation works. You get X points to rate issues or comments based on how many points you have. Comments get a value -2 to 5. Default view only shows 0 to 5. You really only focus your efforts on removing things with a negative rating.

I remember it working surprisingly well, especially browsing at 1 or higher, and I've never understood why no one has replicated it. 'Karma' systems must get better engagement.

IBM still does, it's called the PowerISA now instead of PowerPC (I guess we're finally in a post-PC world after all).

And yes, I think that's right about not being able to get the heat down for laptop parts. That's still over a decade after the PowerPC 601 that competed with the Pentium (P54C). By 2006 it was pretty obvious that x86 had 'won'. DEC Alphas were discontinued, Sun was well into financial difficulties, and SGI (MIPS) was in serious financial trouble, and Apple was moving to Intel.

Side note: A lot of these arguments really happened over 20 years ago. This has actually been a really nice walk down memory lane.

PowerPC was more performant but limited to Apple (echoes of the current M1). The best place I know of to read about that era is Tom Hafhill's Byte Archive. Which has many articles from the 90s about x86, PowerPC and DEC Alpha[0]. Intel (x86) has always been very difficult to compete with because historically they've been able to integrate new technologies into the ISA quickly.

DEC Alpha was more performant than Pentiums, but they caught up eventually. Pentiums were far, far cheaper, however.

Power efficiency wasn't really a thing back then. The original Pentium was an 8 watt part, the common DEC Alpha (21164 in '95) was a 30-50w part.

[0] https://www.halfhill.com/bytelink.html

I think this is closer to the truth. X86 isn't going anywhere because it's been pretty adaptable over the last 43 years. The newest adaption is the big.little design. It will be interesting to see AMD's answer to it. Unless something majorly disrupts the Win/Linux on x86 space, it's going to be around for the foreseeable future.

Also, we've heard these arguments before with Intel i960, IBM PowerPC, DEC Alpha, and Sun SPARC. At the end of it, x86 is still around.

There's authentication between the ONT and OLT that you would have to either implement or relay. This is an edge case because of running Tor. The average user isn't going to run into these problems.

>Of course a leader provides tens or hundreds of times the value of a follower, what an absurd question.

Why is this of course? If it weren't for the followers the leader would have nothing except hot air.

The real value is in the followers, it's just distributed over larger numbers. Maybe I'm missing something, but someone actually has to do the work and it's not normally the "leaders"...

There are a lot of small businesses getting a really hard education in this right now.

It's only legal in 13 states that way. It's actually illegal in 20 states to sell raw milk at all (as of 2017, I don't think this has changed recently).

https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbre...

>And I’m also surprised that all the ‘good’ packets are 70-80ms latency (assuming those pings are from the CO to you and your neighbors houses). That seems pretty bad for a 1Gb/s Ethernet connection IMO.

That is really, really bad for fiber. Optical is effectively latency free because the distance is so short (from light's perspective). They should be seeing low single digit to the teens from the ONT to the OLT. If you ping Google it should be similar (low teens is normal on my setup).

ATT Fiber is mostly GPON with some areas that are XGS-PON. They just started rolling out 2gbit and 5gbit service in one city.

There are a couple of bypass methods on the GPON network that let you use your equipment with the ONT and bypass the RG. I don't think I would bother, though, and I'd just use the 'IP Passthrough' DMZ to assign the public IP to your router. The only problem was the size of the internal connection table on the RG was historically very small and didn't clear quickly which really only causes problems if you torrent. The newer RGs don't have this problem.

On the XGS-PON network the ONT is integrated into the RG so it's not possible right now, but again the DMZ 'IP Passthrough' mode actually works well.

They support IPv6 and they give out a /56 if that matters to you.

You know, I forgot about WebGPU. If you have GPU Compute support I could see a full featured web version being technically possible. AutoCAD Web is really limited compared to the native application.

The Web is just fulfilling Java's 'Write Once Run Everywhere' promise.

I believe Teams just switched to Edge WebView instead of Electron. The point remains that native applications are starting to only be specialty applications like games, CAD/CAM, Creative Suite, etc where you need a lot of access to compute power.

By the time you're publicly traded you're not looking to raise money via equity as you have excellent access to loans by that point. You're not talking about a startup that can't get a loan.

If there was a market of people who would pay for such an app, there would be one on the market to satisfy the demand for it. Supply is irrelevant if there is no demand for it in the first place.

Even taking this assertion, it means there is effectively infinite supply so Twitter's service has effectively no monetary value to the consumer. It's still impossible to charge a consumer for it then (and the costs to provide the service have to be paid by a 3rd party in ads).

Edit: It's very difficult to build a network and get to a critical mass like Twitter. I'm still arguing it's demand constrained (people unwilling to pay) because you would see more viable competitors if it were supply.

> Ad-support allows for a much greater userbase which is a key ingredient to having a good search engine or a good social network.

This logic is backwards. Having a large userbase allows them to sell ads in the first place to the user base that won't pay for the service in the first place.

Pretty much every large tech website has a building phase where they make no money and sell no ads while building a user base large enough to start selling ads. None of the large web companies today have charged to use their product and at this point it's unlikely they could.

>But the argument here is that Twitter’s users won’t defect anywhere. Its social graph is too valuable for them and a coordinated move somewhere else is borderline impossible.

Which is a terrible argument written by someone who doesn't understand the market. It's like saying no one will move away from AIM in 1999. Yes, people will. There are lots of historical examples, including the Digg to Reddit exodus. Even Facebook itself has had the problem of users migrating away from Facebook. Facebook has literally bought companies where users have migrated to (Instagram/WhatsApp).

> EDIT: as a baseline, consider how many users are willing to pay for purchase/subscription to different Twitter apps.

Virtually none. No one was paying for TweetDeck and now it's part of Twitter. Consumers aren't using HootSuite or Sprout Social, they target businesses. Going down the Android list most Twitter apps are free, the few that cost anything have small install bases (Fenix 2 <100k purchases, Talon for Twitter is ~ 100k purchases). Twitter has an daily active users of over 300 million users. So maybe 0.1% are willing to pay a one time fee for a client? I don't think Twitter can do much with that.

Virtually no one,on a consumer level, is willing to pay for a messaging service. WhatsApp (one-to-one) is free, Facebook is free (broadcast), Instagram is free, Snapchat is free, YouTube is free, TikTok is free, Skype is free, Zoom is free (to individuals), Google Chat is free, SMS/MMS/RCS usage is free (depending on how you look at the service cost).

On a business level you can extract payments (think Slack), but on a consumer level, messaging has no value people are will to pay (so it's ad supported instead).

> Plenty of companies and services which people would pay a lot for choose to be ad-supported.

I don't think that's true, because they would charge for access and have ads. These are fairly rare.

>Google, Bing, and other search engines are ad-supported but, if they weren’t, I’d pay a lot for them in a blink of an eye.

Most people wouldn't or they would charge for access and increase their RoI. Search isn't really valuable to Google, they make most of their money in ads.

>plenty of them successfully transitioned to paid subscription model

That's not really true, you have massive consolation because their business model is nonviable any other way.

If Twitter was worth paying for, they wouldn't have used an ad-supported model to begin with (because people would have found it valuable enough to pay for in the first place). In some ways, Twitter has the "news" problem in that people just aren't willing to pay for it. As this says, Internet advertising really isn't that effective, especially on a site that is the equivalent of standing in town square with a megaphone. I think Twitter is tapped out on how much money it can make and drastic changes will just drive users to other places. If you're looking for higher returns a different company might be a better idea.

You're leaving out the fact concrete cracks. We put lines in concrete specifically to control cracks.

There are some pretty massive advantages to using stick-built construction, it's part of the reason it's been so popular for so long.

> Helping kids understand the different between gut-rot crap on youtube vs. some educational game is very important.

I've had a lot of frustration in this department because most of the quality edutainment games are from 15-20 years ago. We've just stopped making progress here and just gone backwards by saying 'screen time is inherently bad, limit it as much as possible'. It's harder for parents to make good choices when it's all Caillou and no Daniel Tiger for options.

I have one. The second one describes my kid.

All unlimited screen time means is that I don't set a limit on it. They can decide to do other stuff and they usually do. I have a Kindle Fire they basically only use in the car, otherwise they'd rather play with friends, or do crafts. The tablet gets pretty boring when you're basically doing it alone.

How's that? Because it's going to be basically impossible to single out this variable in a kid. First, not all 'screen time' is the same.

You see the traits in a kid you know has unlimited screen time and ascribe that to the screen time and not the other parenting decisions that lead to those traits. For example, screen time as a babysitter, only TikTok or mobile games, never talking about their screen time, etc.

There's likely kids you don't think have unlimited screen time that actually do, but because of other parenting decisions, it doesn't result in the same traits. For example, encouraging their kid to read with their screen time (books are on kids tablets now), watch science videos, talking to their kids about what they're doing with their screen time, doing screen time with them, etc.

This is why psychology and sociology studies are so hard, because it is almost impossible to isolate a changing variable in testing.

I'd assume long term they're going to do more with TPMs. Once they start pushing patches that require a TPM, unsupported configurations won't be able to receive that update.

It looks like companies have finally figured out that Amazon's retail success is strongly tied to the distribution network it created to enable 2 day shipping everywhere. This is pretty much the same thing Walmart did to become massively successful (hyperfocus on distribution).

That was only in The Witcher 1. They didn't have them in 2 or 3.

And it wasn't really well received at the time either, but it was a way of handling romance without the awkward cut-scenes that existed at the time. They only briefly showed on screen and IIRC weren't accessible later. It wasn't really collectable in the sense of collect-a-thon games like Mario Odyssey, either. Out of context it sounds horrible, in context it's a bit of a nonsensical addition.

They were going after a "french postcard" feel and it just didn't work that way. Possibly because people aren't as familiar with what they were referencing.

I don't think anyone is going to pay for K/D data from CoD.

Data can be if it's useful, this isn't useful to anyone outside the people playing the game.

Because Amazon still has to have a record of the purchase. It's part of routine recordkeeping laws while running a business.

They could unlink it from your purchase history, but they would still have to maintain the record of the purchase. I believe this is effectively what 'Archiving' order does.