I've come to think something is deeply wrong with the assumption that digital participation must mean audience acquisition. Whenever people talk about leaving platforms, the immediate rebuttal is "discoverability" or "reach" as if it's self-evident that pursuing an audience is inherently good. It's rarely defended; it's just presumed.
This is often smuggled in under the language of "network effects," as though the relationship were mutual. But "audience" is fundamentally one-directional. It turns participation into performance.
I think a lot of internet nostalgia is really grief for a time when you could participate without being on stage. Sure, you wanted lots of people to read your blog, but we did have an era when posting didn't implicitly ask: how big is your following, how well did this travel, did it work.
Today, the "successful" participants (the successful audience-builders) are called "creators", while everyone else (who is also creating, just without large-scale traction) is categorized as lesser or invisible. You can write a blog post, a tweet, a Reddit thread; you have undeniably created something. Yet without an audience, you haven't achieved the status that now defines digital legitimacy.
What I miss is a participation model that didn't say: audience or perish.
Sadly, attention is all you need these days. If you get attention, you will be “set” in part because ads=money but mainly because human attention really is that valuable outside of advertising. Survival is still what matters and so most people judge “creatives” by big number because that means status.
I think people see the very western culture of haves and have nots where all that matters is big number dominating the digital landscape the way it does in the physical world. It is gross but not remotely new. You put the audience or perish pressure on yourself when you value big number go up opinions. Dont be friends with those opinions. They change nothing and have no real power if you dont depend on them for survival.
Yes, that's correct and documented. Robinhood doesn't offer OAuth for third parties - every unofficial integration (robin_stocks, etc.) uses the same pattern.
We're transparent about this tradeoff. If you're not comfortable with it, don't use it. For those who are, tokens are memory-only and wiped on logout/restart.
>It’s always funny when people reveal that they don’t know what the DNC is or does.
I question if you know what they do. They are the ones who establish the official baseline platform for the party. Calling them out specifically vs just the party is basically like calling out a local board vs the entire municipal government.
So many systems are fault-tolerant, and it’s great to remember that in a world where LLMs introduce new faults. Kudos to OP for this mindset; more anti-AI posters would benefit from sitting with the idea from time to time.
Agree. We've all had occasional hilarious results when interacting with an LLM. If 90% of the interactions produce positive results… that's an improvement over my what I've come to expect plowing through Google search results.
So many people's lives would be better if 90% of their daily tasks could be automated by LLMs, letting them spend more time doing the hard 10% properly.
I learn a lot listening to the Money Stuff podcast.¹ The newsletter² is also great but I don’t always have time to read every one. I also really enjoy Why Is This Happening.³ Chris Hayes really shines as an interviewer and policy wonk when he’s not in the cable news format. While Ezra Klein seems to be leaning into Democratic Party whisperer, Hayes is leaning into policy nerdity that I miss from Vox-era Klein.
[exe.dev co-founder here] Thank you! Not to give too many secrets away, but my hope is to follow a business model I have been part of before, and make it as cheap as possible for individuals so they encourage their employers to buy it for work. So I would very much love to get cheaper.
The two constraints are that, one, when small underlying resources are expensive (we hope to fix that soon by not being small!), and two, we do not want to make the resource allocation so small that the VM feels unpleasant to use. So there is a floor on how small we make them.
That said, I very very much want to drop prices. We started with conservative numbers.
This is often smuggled in under the language of "network effects," as though the relationship were mutual. But "audience" is fundamentally one-directional. It turns participation into performance.
I think a lot of internet nostalgia is really grief for a time when you could participate without being on stage. Sure, you wanted lots of people to read your blog, but we did have an era when posting didn't implicitly ask: how big is your following, how well did this travel, did it work.
Today, the "successful" participants (the successful audience-builders) are called "creators", while everyone else (who is also creating, just without large-scale traction) is categorized as lesser or invisible. You can write a blog post, a tweet, a Reddit thread; you have undeniably created something. Yet without an audience, you haven't achieved the status that now defines digital legitimacy.
What I miss is a participation model that didn't say: audience or perish.
reply