That said, this guy is a superstar. This kind of application of skill to a totally different business paradigm to improve it is what I'd love to spend my time doing. Knowing my personality, once I improved the business, I'd get bored running it and move on to finding something else to improve.
This might be a bit of a gold rush of sorts at first, in that the first people to transition from tech to running a small business, whether tech-enabled or not, will find a bigger piece of the pie waiting for their taking. But as the stream of many others increases over the years, the pie's slices will get smaller as competition for the same market segments increases. Not trying to paint doom and gloom, just that I'd imagine, as the author says, this kind of white to blue collar shift will accelerate, and as it does, competition will rise, lowering the chance for overall profits.
I think it's sad that we've created a society that feels social pressure to stare at a screen when they find themselves somewhere without something to say to someone else. This explains why social skills are on the decline.
I second this. I'm guessing you're limiting access at a lower price point because you're worried too many business customers will opt for the lower cost plan when they should be on the higher priced one? I would pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $10/mo or so for a personal plan that had more than your free tier and less than the business one.
Glide appears pretty cool, except that the next level up plan over the free one is $69 per month, more than a little steep for most personal users.
I myself am wondering if there are any good projects out there that do similar things but that use either local databases or even browser storage?
What a brilliant breakdown of so many concepts. Great read! The author has distilled a lot of experience into an insightful article with years of "read between the lines" wisdom gained.
Is this a hit piece by a high-definition display manufacturer? It seems like an unnecessary litany of detractors against one technology without a lot of alternative solutions or trade-offs with others. At the end, there are only 3 sentences that could be called alternatives with the heading "use high resolution displays". Making a "helpful" paper that only lists problems without comparisons or solutions misses all the reasons one would use a 7-segment display (mentioned in the comments here so I won't repeat). There's nothing wrong with this technology. The title "don't use" is too inclusive and is not supported by the paper. I think "Consider not using in certain applications" would have been more appropriate based on the paper's body.
I think this is at the core of the rot of American society. The thinking that a CEO "owes" the marketing of their company so as to cash it in or even turn profits is, in my opinion, is a mark of the biggest moral ineptitude of the western world's thinking. Yes, I realize this is the 'norm', but it clashes with deep values of the people who aren't shareholders, but are no doubt vested in the product the company produces, mainly the customers. It ignores their needs completely because they don't own stock.
"We sold the company, and the new owners bastardized it by slapping their logo on it by eliminating the free tier" is almost commonplace now in business dogma, and yes, most people think it is the kind of strategy 'owed' to shareholders, but this one-sided thinking ignores the better interest of users who the company has built their business on the backs of, and who will now be bait-and-switched into a subscription model, never mind the needs that drove them to the product in the first place. Yes, this is how capitalism works. What I'm saying is that capitalism, as a model, is flawed from a moralistically balanced point of view. It's a never-ending race to the bottom by optimizing for greed until every drop of monetization is squeezed out and every person is left without. Should the owner's employees make money, I mean after all they do the work? Yes, but who takes into account the inestimable value added by the initial users who's interaction with the product shaped it into what it is today?
This article shoots itself in the foot right at the start. It reveals that the author is in fact just as wrapped up in Twitter as those he critiques. It shows a graph with a person on the left who has "nothing to say" being a mongrel, as if it's bad not to want to insert or even have a personal opinion about everything. There is completely nothing wrong with not getting wrapped up in the BS that is modern western society at large. In fact, it's quite healthy NOT to have an opinion about any of it because you're off doing much better, much healthier things.
Nothing compared then or since to VB 6's ease of layout and GUI-centered approach. It was a language that was easy to use and WAY less complicated than C#. To me, complicated is a huge drawback. Give me just enough tools to make something that works. VB6 was absolutely fantastic for prototyping. I have absolutely no need for 200 methods for every expression that I have to go lookup every time (this is why IntelliSense even exists), having to think about bullshit like "syntactic sugar", aka "the only way to do something because it's otherwise too hard to remember", which to be fair started with javascript frameworks, but applies equally well to .NET.
The whole dot paradigm took a group of people who were very comfortable with a language and tried to turn their brains inside out. Ex: x.ToString doesn't have the same intuitive recognition as Str(x), nor can Str(x) be as easily muddled together with 3 other methods. Call it simple and meaningless, but .NET is profuse with these turnarounds, and they required people to re-learn everything, even the simple stuff. .NET adds layers of complexity by enabling super-spiffy compact writing of multiple operations with complex operators all on the same line that is far too easy to get lost in and that frankly, is unnecessary. I'm talking about things like delegates, lambda expressions, extension methods, and async/await. These are cute if you're super nerdy, but for most of the rest of the world they take something that was easy to use and contort it into an unrecognizable mess.
VB6 was just complex enough and graphics-centered and they moved it to a hugely overly complex and language-centered model. It made no sense to me. Of course, everyone who thought "real" programming should be harder embraced C# like it was manna from God, and this by and large is the thinking that killed VB6. It was a complete paradigm shift in the wrong direction for visual thinkers.
Reminds me of movies like "Top Secret" and "Airplane", where they spend a big chunk of time setting up elements of the story and characters lines, all to deliver a slapstick joke.
Like anyone believes for a second anything that comes out of this guy's mouth. Even if true, who cares Elon? You're so good at shooting yourself in the foot, you might consider being a professional Russian Roulette player.
Yup, I have used Svelte, but not very much at all. Honestly, it didn't strike me as terribly different in syntax from Vue. It's a similar framework (in this case, compiler). It is a common paradigm in marketing that a new technology/product needs to provide 10x the benefit of its predecessors to convince people to switch. Would you say it provides that for you? I just went and reviewed some of the material on it, and see that it's getting known for being easier. This surprised me. You may have convinced me to go take another look.
I'm going to sound old here, but why use Svelte? Why yet another one? Why not an established framework like React or Vue? I realize Svelte is compiled but it's oh so close to the others, and its performance is only better in certain corner cases. I ask because of learning exhaustion with the plethora of lookalike languages and frameworks and the constant, unending learning curve associated with all front end development now. I'm not dissing creation or incremental progress. I just sometimes don't think the constant change for new languages and frameworks that come with only minor syntax changes or small differences under the hood is worth the never-ending mandatory learning thrust on developers.
It has always annoyed me that the financial services industry attempts to referred to mortgages, loans and other financial instruments as "products". By definition, they are services. The many papers you get when signing a mortgage is about the closest thing you could refer to as a "product".
I think they do this to attempt to create a sense of finality and inflexibility in what they are selling. "It's a product" makes it seem like a fixed thing that cannot be changed, when in fact, it definitely can be.