confoundcofound

Respectfully disagree. I think UX is the problem. If there are a billion different ways to solve it, why haven't they?

Centralized systems make wealth hard to unseat, but they also afford a level of UX – convenience, failsafes, oversight, etc – that is simply out of reach for decentralized products today.

I don't disagree. But "crypto" as a product category is the confluence of all 3 and has thus far produced zero mass market solutions.

This is why I think the problem is ultimately UX. The ideals of crypto are sound, but an appropriate UX for mass adoption is just not achievable due to inherent traits of the underlying tech. As someone familiar with crypto, I would never consider managing my assets on the blockchain in the current product landscape.

It seems the entire industry is filled with builders who are just dog-fooding janky products to each other under the guise of traction.

Already working on it. Great recurring revenue opportunity.

YC the program, not Hacker News.

Trained a model on my voice and set up a cardboard cutout of myself next to my baby's crib so that I can provide validation and encouragement around the clock. Has freed up considerable time for my wife and I to enjoy each other's company. Currently hacking together a robotic bottle arm attachment for on-demand feeding.

This is what happens when free speech is not valued and defended throughout our culture. Politics is downstream from culture. When we are OK with, and often encouraging of, private censorship, we shift the Overton window and provide moral cover for politicians and government entities to further consolidate power. This story is a prime example.

People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you from government censorship as a basis to invalidate the vigorous defense of free speech ideals in society, are either disingenuous or wildly narrow sighted.

Is there any way back (forward) to this sort of tech innocence?

This type of mentality is readily observed amongst abusive parents. "That was a long time ago, why can't you move on?" "You were a sensitive child."

I will never understand people who seem to lack the ability to see that their actions may have a rippling effect throughout someone's life. One can meaningfully and negatively alter the trajectory of someone's life with one action.

I'm not advocating that we live in neurotic paralysis wrecked with the fear of unknowingly hurting others, but we should accept that whatever hurt we do inflict can have long-lasting implications, and when others shed light on ways we may have hurt them, that we lean in, understand, and make amends if possible.

We are all connected.

There are companies working on authentication and fraud detection as we speak. There is an emerging cold war between them and AI.

Technology will advance such that basic "truths" will be verifiable, leaving journalists as nothing more than storytellers. We should be investing in companies that empower people with the verifiable information they need to arrive at their own conclusions.

He has openly professed his belief in "strong opinions, weakly held."

I think discussions around potential behavioral impact of this tech category is a must, particularly with the existing forces at play that subsidize the literal engineering of addiction.

Personally, I would rather give people the benefit of doubt.

Off the top of my head:

-Assume the creator's impetus to create is legitimate.

-Give feedback like you would to an excited friend.

-Do not ascribe a product decision to malicious intent.

-Do not predict the ultimate success or failure of a product.

-Do not plug your own competing product.

Could you not find a million other ways to provide this feedback less abrasively? People like you unnecessarily exacerbate the stress of launching a new endeavor.

Huh?

Difference being I straighten myself occasionally and look at you in the eyes.

Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped to their face? The shots of that dad playing with his daughters while wearing the device seemed like a stretch that I'm surprised Apple took. This is the company that takes its "Human Interface Guidelines" seriously.

Yeah honestly I'm surprised and disheartened that Apple went this direction. This feels dystopian and less humane in many ways – an accelerant of the physical isolation that we've seen technology create. The shots of people at home alone talking to an empty room, the dad playing his daughters with the headset on, the woman grabbing a drink from her fridge.

My hope is that this is a calculated step towards a more integrated form factor that will enrich our sense of connection and engagement with the physical world.

It’s a conspiracy theory because you believe what Instagram is telling you.

Alexa listening was also a conspiracy theory until it was discovered it did just that and Amazon claimed it was a “rare occurrence.”

The incentives speak for themselves.

When are we going to take real action against this? When will execs and investors be held accountable?

I have no doubt that every tech company is secretly and illegally surveilling. If data is the name of today’s game, then tech co’s have every incentive to do so and to lie about it, particularly if there is essentially no punishment for doing so.

Everyone knows Instagram is listening. I don’t care what they say. The alternative is a mass scale hallucination that is highly improbable.

Smell seems fine

I suspect they’re referring to using blockchain as a system of cryptographically-verified facts and shared reality to counteract the AI risk you mention.

Why was GP flagged? They made a good point.

Business that operate in the physical world, like retail stores and healthcare clinics, stand to gain the greatest strategic advantage in an AI world because their data is the hardest to generate and access.

You think he wouldn’t do the same for a Democrat?

I don’t believe the the US government ever threatened to take Twitter down if it didn’t comply with their censor requests. It’s just that those requests happened to align politically with those running Twitter Trust & Safety.

My understanding is that Erdojan threatened to throttle the site for the entire country - a cost that maybe you or I may not have incurred if we were in that position.

At the very least, Twitter was transparent about the content restriction, which is certainly better than how the previous team operated.

The media is hellbent on pushing the narrative that Musk is destroying Twitter. It’s actually kind of wild. You see it on here too.

I think Musk’s product vision is noble and clear: to make Twitter as neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible. No soft censoring, algorithmic manipulation, etc. You can imagine why certain groups would be against that. And rooting out “extremism” is not it, despite what they say.

We have a crisis of morality in tech and society at large. When the ends justify the means, and the ends are in fact unending pursuits of power, then no amount of deception, deceit, collusion is off the table. And yes, people who work at FAANG et al are complicit.

You don’t need a social science background to fix Twitter.