Wasn't the internet solely the domain of the (techno) elite for a very long time? It's the masses that have wrecked what we had, the the "new" elite profiting off of them. Maybe the societal gains outweigh what we lost, but if you were part of the original elite 20+ years ago, you're now in a much worse place.
I wouldn’t consider academics and technologists to be the “elite” in a societal sense. I’m talking about the people that go to Ivy League schools and make up positions in top companies and government organizations.
For example: the New York Times ran an editorial in the 90s about how the internet would have a similar effect to fax machines. They are an elite organization and didn’t care about the internet much then. Now, twenty five years later, they do care a lot about what’s on the internet.
what about the hardware that significantly leverages their non-game software? I think the full ramifications of what they're doing with mobile gaming have not yet been felt.
Pretty big stretch to compare a massive disruption to the medium with a massive disruption to the content. The press is far closer to the web than generative content. The output from AI is closer to the unibomber's manifesto, and the only entity calling for burning detractors at the stake is vested-interest individuals like you, and AI itself.
That's how human brain works through constant exposure. If you don't care learning the language and honest with yourself about it then it's fine too. But this topic is mostly about the people who do want to learn the language.
to learn another language it's critical you use it as often as possible, in an ideal world you want to completely swap out your native language for the one you're learning, that's the reason for the streak, to keep you engaged in the target language to help you learn, it's not like a snapchat streak which is completely pointless
Memories are short, but Twilio was built when doing what seemed obvious - add an API to telecom services - was really hard. It's what Stripe is (doing, not done) to banking & payment, what countless companies have failed to do with Healthcare... I met Jeff in the early days and the fact that he (a) managed to stay the CEO through this growth & timeline, and (b) gave few enough sh!ts to maintain a hacker dev mentality makes him a notable standout. I'm not surprised that lots of people with legitimate viewpoints and perspectives DO/DID NOT like him or his approach. To me, that's a feature; we need less CEOs and senior executives who try to be all things to all people.
And I think most consumers don't want these things. When given the choice they've consistently taken cost and convenience over openness, privacy or durability.
Doesn't this imply that there's an entire group of people who are now better off, if they have to choose between (a) the relatively new availability of cheap clothes or food and (b) going without? Previously they went without?
