unsignedint

Even if I don't run my own mail server, I can still open an email header and see context. Last time I checked, I can't walk into a telco and ask for the telephone equivalent of that. On PSTN, there's nothing beyond a bare caller ID string, and that lack of context is exactly why I see it as a problem.

Email gives end users multiple signals and filters to work with. PSTN doesn't, and that's why I disagree with your equivalence.

I get the distinction you’re drawing, but that just brings us back to the same fork: if decades of FCC involvement haven’t produced a trustworthy caller identity system, then the reliance on regulation isn’t solving the structural weakness, it’s just propping it up.

At that point, we’re repeating the same values clash — you see regulation as a workable fix, I see it as evidence of fragility. I don’t think continuing this line is going to get us any further.

I’m not “eager to give up” interoperability — I’m saying interoperability without trust isn’t worth much. Calling it orthogonal doesn’t change the lived reality that the abuse rides on that interoperability at scale.

If the only way to preserve interoperability is to accept decades of unresolved abuse and perpetual patchwork fixes, then that’s not a trade-off I find compelling. At that point we’re not debating facts, we’re debating tolerance levels — and mine is lower. I think that’s a good place to leave it.

Sure, but my point still stands — you have more tools to work with in email. For what it’s worth, I can usually contextualize a message from the subject line and the sender’s address without needing to dive deep into headers. (Phishing is definitely a real problem, but it’s not unique to email in this discussion.)

Now compare that to the PSTN: what does 555-123-4567 really tell you? Not much. It’s just a string of digits with no inherent context. And unlike email, I can’t even choose to outright refuse delivery of a call at the network level.

I only said “good chunk” because there are already more than a few reports pointing to a shift in behavioral patterns around calls. (Feel free to Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo it when you have a chance.) The point is less about an exact percentage and more about the fact that user behavior has already adapted in ways that erode PSTN’s practical value.

And if the FCC were fully capable of solving this problem, I don’t think we’d still be here after decades of the same issues. That longevity itself is part of my argument: it’s not that people haven’t tried, it’s that the structural limitations resist a clean fix.

Also, IP addresses aren’t a great analogy. They’re not a sole indicator of origination — we have layers of metadata, routing, and reputation systems around them. I’d accept that comparison more readily if phone numbers were spoof-proof. But they aren’t, and that’s yet another area where the FCC hasn’t managed to close the gap.

Yes, absolutely — I’m not suggesting email is anywhere near perfect or free of abuse. But at least collectively, the layers of filtering, reputation systems, and standards make it usable for most people most of the time.

The key difference for me is that the PSTN moves at a snail’s pace, maybe because of regulatory entanglements, maybe because of interoperability constraints. The result is that problems which have been rampant for decades — spoofing, spam, robocalls — remain trivial to exploit. Email has plenty of its own problems here, but at least you get more signals to work with (headers, DKIM/SPF/DMARC, filtering, etc.) than just a string of 10–12 digits with no real context.

That’s why I’m less inclined to “cherish” a system whose shortcomings shift so much burden onto the end user’s well-being, all in the name of interoperability. If interoperability means putting up with abuse at this scale, then that interoperability isn’t worth much — and that’s where my frustration comes from.

I think Chesterton’s fence is a fair analogy—but it only works if the “fence” still serves a protective function. With the PSTN, the fence is riddled with holes, and the people meant to maintain it can’t keep up with the erosion. Interoperability was indeed its greatest strength, but today that same universality is what lets malicious actors reach everyone at trivial cost.

Comparing PSTN to instant messaging walled gardens is interesting, but I’d argue the real parallel is email: a federated, open standard that also suffers from spam and abuse, yet still manages to limp along thanks to heavy filtering and layered trust systems. The PSTN never evolved those trust layers; instead, it relied on scarcity (call cost, geographic constraints) to keep abuse in check. Once those costs collapsed, the trust model collapsed with them.

As for the FCC, sure, they can try to incentivize carriers. But the fact that we need constant regulatory intervention just to keep basic trust afloat suggests the system is no longer structurally sound. Band-aids like STIR/SHAKEN prove the point: we’re bolting authentication onto a protocol that never envisioned it. That might extend its life a little, but it doesn’t make the foundation any less fragile.

So the question isn’t whether the PSTN once had value (it did, massively), but whether preserving it now delivers more value than the cost of propping it up. If a good chunk of people already treat unknown calls as spam until proven otherwise, then the social contract around the PSTN has already been broken.

Maybe shutting down the entire phone system would be too disruptive, but perhaps we could start by rethinking incoming calls for individuals—or at least shift the social norm around them. In a sense, that trend has already begun, since most people won’t pick up if the number is unfamiliar. And in circles where multi-modal communication is the default, how often do you actually get a legitimate call over PSTN anymore?

Legitimacy aside, the only people who still call me without prior arrangement tend to be those who assume they’re entitled to my time and attention on demand. The phone has always been a disruptive form of communication—even if every single call were legitimate (which is far from reality)—because it disregards the boundaries of the recipient’s time.

That’s why I stopped giving anyone real-time PSTN access. For me, it’s voicemail-only now, and honestly, it’s the best decision I’ve made for cutting down on annoyances.

Yes, it used to be around 15 cents or so to send or receive an SMS (depending on the rate plan). But, as with calls, unlimited messaging has become the norm these days.

In the US, the receiver effectively covers the cost of mobile calls—though it’s a bit nuanced, so apologies for any lack of clarity. You’re essentially paying for incoming calls if you’re on a metered plan, since those minutes get deducted. With most rate plans now being unlimited, this cost is somewhat hidden.

In Japan (the only other system I’m familiar with), it works differently: the caller is charged for the recipient’s end, while the receiver pays nothing. For example, calling a mobile phone from a landline costs more to account for the mobile portion. I remember years ago using a prepaid phone card from a payphone to call a mobile number—the balance drained incredibly fast. This is one reason why younger generations in Japan rarely rely on PSTN for routine calls, since it can quickly become expensive.

Well, isn’t that essentially what voicemail is? We already have a mechanism to send voices as files—it’s just that not all voicemail systems deliver them in that format.

It wouldn’t solve everything, but considering how many scammers rely on real-time urgency in their calls, shifting phone communication toward asynchronous messages could actually help. It would undercut that pressure tactic, and it would also make record-keeping much easier.

The PSTN is simply not sustainable. It’s a relic of a time when there was no practical way to authenticate or validate calls. Today, with malicious actors able to dial in from anywhere in the world at negligible cost, the system is fundamentally unequipped to handle the abuse it faces.

Efforts like STIR/SHAKEN exist, but they’re little more than a band-aid—and not a particularly effective one—because the underlying network was never designed with resilience or trust in mind.

I know some people push back on this view, often pointing to edge cases where PSTN’s ubiquity still provides value. But as trust in the system erodes, so does its relevance. And if the majority of people already avoid answering calls from numbers they don’t recognize, its practical utility is clearly diminished.

Or just make callers cover all the costs, like in some countries. Still, I really wish there were an option to charge incoming callers as you suggested—because honestly, about 90% of calls I get outside my circle are unsolicited. That way, only the 10% that truly matter would reach me. Right now, I’m on a strict “no-ring” policy: if a call turns out to be legitimate, I’ll call back. But nobody gets real-time PSTN access to me anymore—it’s simply not sustainable.

Well, my point is that what you’re experiencing with anime and other content from Japan when accessed within Japan is actually quite normal. It’s the same reason I can hardly ever find content here in the U.S., especially from major movie studios, that includes Japanese subtitles or dubs.

I’m sorry you have to deal with that limitation. I can relate, since I also want to enjoy media in Japanese. Fortunately, having lived here long enough, I can at least comprehend it without subtitles.

Am I happy about it? No, but unfortunately, that’s the reality for now.

It’s frustrating when languages are locked behind regional restrictions or selective availability, and it borders on being an accessibility issue. That said, things have improved compared to the past, at least when it comes to consuming foreign media from outside its home country. In my case, that means accessing Japanese content while outside Japan.

In most cases, I suspect the limitation isn’t the fault of the streaming services but rather the content owners. On Netflix, for example, expecting English subtitles for anime in Japan is about as hopeless as expecting Japanese subtitles for U.S.-made films while in the United States.

To Netflix’s credit, their original shows are often subtitled and dubbed in a wide range of languages, which has significantly increased the availability of non-English content worldwide.

The same trend can be seen with music, at least for Japanese music. Until around ten years ago, almost nothing was available abroad. While some regional restrictions remain on certain tracks, the vast majority are now accessible outside Japan.

Yes, but that too is nuanced. There are, of course, clear-cut cases of unacceptable behavior that are already moderated as such. However, when you have people coming together from hundreds, if not thousands, of cultures and backgrounds, I doubt there’s a single set of rules that works for everyone. It ultimately becomes another question of where we draw the line.

I believe that in most networks, there’s at least some level of moderation to prevent the worst behavior. But beyond that, moderation becomes a much trickier issue.

When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to avoid a brawl. Even then, heated arguments aren’t uncommon.

In an environment where one person’s truth can be another’s misinformation, I’m not sure moderation can ever be applied in a way that satisfies everyone involved.

Social media as a vessel for diverse discussion is a tall order. It’s too public, too tied to context, and ultimately a no-win game. No matter how carefully you present yourself, you’ll end up being the “bad guy” to someone. The moment a discussion touches even lightly on controversy, healthy dialogue becomes nearly impossible.

Think of it this way: you’re hosting a party, and an uninvited stranger kicks the door open, then starts criticizing how you make your bed. That’s about what it feels like to try to “fix” social media.

In my personal experience, the belief that “you should tip no matter what” is surprisingly pervasive. Anecdotally, I once had a situation where a restaurant completely dropped the ball—they brought me a cup of coffee, then never returned to take my order, even after I asked. After wasting my time, I had to leave and eat elsewhere. I didn’t leave a tip, yet many of my peers insisted I still should have. I disagree. The idea of tipping someone for poor service—especially when they’re clearly not even trying—is, frankly, sickening. If that makes me the a-hole in these situations, so be it—I’d rather be that than reward apathy.

Actually, it’s the western region of Japan that uses 60 Hz. In the early days of electrification (around the 1880s), during the transition from DC to AC, western Japan adopted a 60 Hz standard using a generator built by General Electric. Meanwhile, eastern Japan imported a generator from the German company AEG, which operated at 50 Hz.

I don't think it's necessary to keep up with every detail of general AI developments. Depending on your field, it's more effective to focus selectively—for example, I pay closer attention to natural language processing and LLM applications because my work is in language technology.

You don't need to dive deep into what every new service, model, or solution is doing. Instead, I keep an eye on them with peripheral awareness, so to speak. Just because a new model boasts impressive benchmarks doesn’t mean it’s practically useful in real-world contexts. Likewise, trends like agents and “vibe coding” might be valuable in certain scenarios—and that’s great when they are—but they don’t magically solve every business problem.

To be clear, I do explore and make use of new technologies. But my main focus is on what’s actually useful for me. Otherwise, it’s easy to get swept up in the hype—a sea of performative glorification that everyone (and their cats) seems to be chasing. In fact, sometimes there’s value in being a strategic laggard. The latest shiny thing often comes with a hefty price tag, and being aware—without being dazzled—goes a long way.

It’s really about understanding the broader spectrum. You could assume that what you’re reading is the whole picture—but it’s still useful to see how the existence of these so-called “absurd things” influences and shapes the narratives within the media you do choose to consume.

Perhaps it’s most useful as a way to avoid getting trapped in a filter bubble. If you prefer to stay within the comfort zone of your favorite news outlet, there’s nothing stopping you—and in that case, you probably won’t get much value from services like Ground News.

Personally, I find it helpful to see what people outside my usual information sphere are being exposed to—not just to understand why others may think the way they do, but also to better recognize how that contrast influences the coverage I choose to consume.

Just to add to my earlier point: Ground News is not a fact-checking service, nor does it claim to be one. While it does provide factual data about media sources, that information is aggregated from multiple third-party evaluators, as stated on its information page. It doesn’t verify the truth of individual news reports—it simply shows how a story was covered.

Naturally, this means the platform includes misinformation, political spin, and propaganda—because it’s not designed to tell you whether a story is true. As for the Blindspot feature, it may flag sources with a history of low factual reporting, but ultimately, it’s still up to you to decide how trustworthy any given coverage is.

Most of the examples this article cites are ones that exclude any coverage from left-leaning sources—and these are often highly biased articles, frequently lacking in merit. Even with tools like Ground News, media literacy is still essential; you can’t just throw it out the window. From my perspective, it offers a much broader view than simply sticking to one or two news outlets—especially ones you'd normally avoid at all costs (which, to me, is the whole point of the Blindspot feature). While it does provide some historical data, media ownership information, and other insights depending on your subscription level, ultimately it's up to the reader to decide whether the coverage is legitimate.

I believe the main purpose of Ground News—especially the Blindspot feature—is to highlight what the "other side" is reading, rather than to lend legitimacy to the reported content. I still find that information valuable, but perhaps that distinction could have been made more explicit.

I definitely see where you're coming from, though I have a slightly different perspective.

I agree that LLMs often fall short when it comes to capturing the nuanced reasoning behind implementations—and when used in an autopilot fashion, things can easily go off the rails. Documentation isn't just about what is said, but also what’s not said, and that kind of judgment is something LLMs do struggle with.

That said, when there's sufficient context and structure, I think LLMs can still provide a solid starting point. It’s not about replacing careful documentation but about lowering the barrier to getting something down—especially in environments where documentation tends to be neglected.

In my experience, that neglect can stem from a few things: personal preference, time pressure, or more commonly, language barriers. For non-native speakers, even when they fully understand the material, writing clear and fluent documentation can be a daunting and time-consuming task. That alone can push it to the back burner. Add in the fact that docs need to evolve alongside the code, and it becomes a compounding issue.

So yes, if someone treats LLM output as the final product and walks away, that’s a real problem. And honestly, this ties into my broader skepticism around the “vibe coding” trend—it often feels more like “fire and forget” than responsible tool usage.

But when approached thoughtfully, even a 60–90% draft from an LLM can be incredibly useful—especially in situations where the alternative is having no documentation at all. It’s not perfect, but it can help teams get unstuck and move forward with something workable.

Spotify seems to rely more on cross-device sync. As the name of the feature suggests, it depends on having the actual media file stored locally. In contrast, YouTube Music stores everything in the cloud.

Local files work fine if you're always playing music on devices you own and that have local storage. But if you're using media devices like a Chromecast (unless you're casting directly from a device that has access to the local files), or on machines where you don’t have sync privileges—like a work computer—YouTube Music will work, but Spotify won’t.

I get what you're saying, but I think there's a misunderstanding. I would opt for something like Waymo, not because I'm trying to avoid people or conflict, but because I prefer a system where the pricing is clear and all-inclusive.

It's not that I don't want people to be paid. I just believe compensation should be built into the cost upfront, not tacked on afterward through a tipping system that creates unnecessary pressure, especially when ratings are involved.

This isn't about replacing people. It's about preferring a model that's transparent, predictable, and fair without making customers responsible for patching up systemic pay issues.

Everyone has their preferences—this is mine, and I'm comfortable with it.

Yeah, I’d happily pay a bit extra just to take tipping out of the equation entirely. Not having to worry about it is enough of a draw on its own. (I’m not a fan of tipping culture to begin with — especially with apps like Uber, where you’re also being rated, which adds even more pressure.)

Now if only Waymo were available in my area…