JSavageOne

Criticize Google Maps all you want, but it is easily one of the most useful apps to me, especially as someone who's been been living nomadically the last 5 years. It's kind of scary how dependent I am on this app. Anytime I need to find a restaurant, dentist, electronics store, etc. - I'm looking first on Google Maps and my life is basically dictated by the results.

I have lists like "Places to Work" which is a list of all the nice coffee shops and places I like to work out of (currently have 200). I star hotels + AirBnBs I'm staying in, and bookmark a ton of things. I rely on it for public transportation. If I could only pick 3 apps on my phone, Google Maps would definitely be one of them.

I do wish there were better alternatives and I hate being overly dependent on one company. Unfortunately the open source alternatives like OpenStreetMap don't really even compare.

Are there any non-Apple equivalent of AirTags?

Definitely admire this girl's persistence. And shame on United for handling this so poorly.

Who has Musk censored?

Censoring mentions of Mastodon was indeed a terrible move, but he did backtrack on that.

Was there anything else?

Alternative link: https://twitter.com/jeremybernier/status/1686573852770664449

> Reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram.

Yea I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I find your statement that TikTok is superior to each of these absurd and comical.

Why are you assuming I've never installed and tried TikTok?

Ok I've never used Rails, but personally I've enjoyed my experience with a monorepo (pnpm workspaces) consisting of a Node.js API server and Next.js frontend server. You could try doing everything in Next.js, but I prefer keeping my backend separate. Love having everything in a monorepo though.

If you want more coupling, perhaps you could try something like ts-rest to add API types to your frontend. Or if you're feeling more adventurous, GraphQL or tRPC, though I personally prefer to avoid being tied to overly experimental frameworks.

> One of our lead engineers setup an NX monorepo. We deploy an API to AWS and our front-end to vercel.

I don't understand where the complexity is in your setup that you're unhappy with.

restricting freedoms was referring to the people who were adamant on keeping Twitter's previous 280 character restriction, which I see now you weren't advocating for

Which platforms are TikTok better than? Because I can't think of any. It's junk food for the brain, and I've heard even teenagers tell me that themselves. I think in the future TikTok will be looked back at not unlike the tobacco industry in the 20th century.

The heroin, crystal meth, opioids, and other destructive drugs' markets are also fairly large.

> the work will be at the expense and harm of the next generation.

How is his work since 70 at the expense of the next generation?

People should do what they enjoy. If that's mentoring others, then great. If one doesn't enjoy mentoring others, that's fine too.

I'm in the same boat in that I have 1k followers and my tweets generally only get 10-30 views, which is pretty pathetic and seems oddly low. But maybe my content just sucks, idk. In any case being a Twitter influencer is not so important to me.

Notes were terrible though - having to click into a separate page that seemed entirely removed from the app. If I recall one couldn't even see replies to them.

(at least that's my memory of it, admittedly it's been a while so could be off)

Bill Ackman posts primarily long tweets, and I see it often enough from other random accounts that the feature is definitely being used. But even if it wasn't, just having the option is a nice feature. Always found it absurd how people in comments want to restrict peoples' freedoms in applications - I guess people are afraid of change, hence why these big corporations often stop innovating.

Are you sure about that? Twitter's net loss in 2020 and 2021 were $1.1b and $221m.

> The essence of Twitter is precisely that the tweets are short, bite-sized thoughts

Yea hard disagree there. I spend more time and get more value and depth from reading Twitter threads than random tweets. Twitter threads however are an abomination UI-wise and annoying to write. Longer tweets make more sense.

In any case if you prefer shorter content that's fine, but there's nothing to be gained by restricting content type. Give people freedom and let the users decide what they find worthwhile.

It's funny to me that everytime I'd mention increasing the tweet length all the replies I'd get would be people telling me I'm wrong and that Twitter should keep the same smaller character limit. It's like vocal people on the internet fear change.

> massive mistake

Whether it's a mistake comes down to how much revenue Twitter makes in blue checkmark fees vs. how much revenue they lost from advertisers bailing. I'd need to see some hard numbers on that before being able to call it a mistake.

From a user perspective however I don't care at all. If anything making that more egalitarian instead of some mythical status symbol makes more sense.

For the record I say all of this as someone who hasn't purchased a blue checkmark.

Is anything on TikTok worth consuming?

> No product improvements

Removing the tweet limit was a massive improvement (something I'd wanted for a decade). Showing view counts is also nice. I don't like the login-walls and selling blue checkmarks, but I understand that the company was financially struggling prior to Elon. In any case my impression has been that Twitter has improved more since Elon than prior to that. My Twitter usage is definitely higher than before, though admittedly that could be unrelated to Elon.

The downside is increased short-term dev time and code, and thus increasing rigidity of the code. In most cases this tradeoff is still worth it, but sometimes speed and flexibility is a higher priority, hence why I prefer opt-in

A tenured professor pursuing their scientific passion vs. a cog at a for-profit corporation who's mission is to serve shareholders, in an industry that had over 150k layoffs in the last year, where you have no freedom over your work, have to play politics and constantly justify your value and why they shouldn't fire you, you're easily replaceable, and little of your work is particularly meaningful or benefits society.

Not really a mystery why one of these entails passion, energy, and excitement at age 100 while the other doesn't.

I think it's less about ability to retire early, more about realization that being forced to sell one's life and freedom to an employer is not only miserable, but completely unnecessary for society to function (eg. with a UBI society would carry on just fine, and likely accelerate automation).

The older generation didn't grow up with technology so perhaps it's not as obvious to them.

FIRE is about financial independence, aka freedom to work on whatever you want. It'd be nonsensical not to strive for financial independence.

I'm not FIRE but took most of the last year to work on projects that I enjoy. There's absolutely no comparison to working for oneself vs. working for a boss for a paycheck. The former has me loving life and my work, the latter will have my questioning my career choice and the system we live in.

Probably in 10 years we'll have something resembling a UBI in most major western countries, so finally everyone will have the freedom to work on what they enjoy instead of selling their soul for a paycheck.

Ok I stand corrected on the MIT license, thanks for the explanation. I wonder why so many on HN criticize it then, seems reasonable to me.

Hard disagree on AI being just a bubble with limited applicability.

> It won't be able to self-drive cars due to all the edge cases, it won't be able to perform surgeries because it might kill people, etc.

You literally just cherry-picked the most difficult applications of AI. The vast majority of peoples' jobs don't involve life or death, and thus are ripe for automation. And even if the life or death jobs retain a human element, they will most certainly be augmented by AI agents. For example a surgery might still be handled by a human, but it will probably become mandatory for a doctor or nurse to diagnose a patient in conjunction with an AI.

> We went through a similar bubble a few years ago with chatbots

Are you honestly comparing that to now? ChatGPT got to 100 million users in a few months and everyone and their grandma has used it. I wasn't even aware of any chatbot bubble a few years ago, it certainly wasn't that significant.

> even the most useful AI tools (Copilot, etc.) are marginally useful at best

Sure, but you're literally seeing them in their worst versions. ChatGPT has been a life-changer for me, and it doesn't even execute code yet (Code Interpreter does though, which I haven't tested yet)

By 2030 humans probably won't be typing code anymore, it'll just be prompting machines and directing AI agents. By then most peoples' jobs will also be automated.

AI isn't just some fad, it's going to change literally every industry, and way faster than people think. The cynicism here trying to dismiss the implications of AI by comparing it to the metaverse are just absurd and utterly lacking in imagination. Yes there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, specifically in the AI agent side of things, but we will get there, probably way faster than people realize, and the implications are enormous.

You're completely misrepresenting my quote by cutting off the "and sell it" at the end, that's incredibly disingenuous.

MIT license restrict commercialization. Is the MIT license not open source then?

So what is the appropriate term then for "source code freely available, but cannot be used for commercial use?"

I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that source code being publicly accessible is worse than nobody being able to access it? What a ridiculous statement.

As a nomad I do spend more time in hotels - maybe 70% hotels, 30% AirBnBs. I generally spend more time in hotels because 1. I book last minute and hotels offer maximum flexibility and significantly greater possibility to extend my stay, whereas an AirBnB will generally only be open for the time I booked and full afterwards 2. hotels are generally cheaper than AirBnB these days 3. hotels have more consistency in quality

That being said I still check AirBnB because sometimes there are great deals there. Also the longer term I'm booking, the more I'm going to prefer an AirBnB-type apartment or house accommodation - though AirBnB will likely be at least 2-4x more expensive than booking the same place through local sources - though the latter will probably require a minimum stay of at least 1-3 months (which still can end up cheaper than AirBnB for short-term stays).

This is why I'll likely never work in an office again. So much theater, posturing, and bs. I'd rather be judged strictly on my results, which remote work maximizes.

When offices were still a thing at least one could have some alone time to focus and a sense of privacy. Open offices are awful and straight dystopian unless you're actually a startup with < 20 employees. Why employees put up with that is beyond me, but I'm glad that COVID put offices out of fashion. Just wish I could get some apology letters for the office grunts and Uncle Toms who used to make a big deal out of WFH to make themselves seem relevant.

I think UBI will be the norm by 2030. Though the way I see it playing out is that initially most countries will just opt for stronger safety nets with means-testing. The point at which workers' livelihoods are clearly being automated in mass is where it will start to become politically feasible to implement the UBI. I think UBI is too radical for the baby boomers, but more palatable for the youth who've been massively screwed over their whole lives and are more aware of how rigged the system is.