catapart
"Hmm. Not sure. Maybe google it?" is pretty innocuous no matter the context.
"Hmm. Not sure. Maybe look it up?" can sound dismissive or condescending in some cases to some people's ear.
It's a weird quirk of English where being non-specific is like saying "I don't know, you figure it out", where being very specific is like saying "Here's the solution (that I would use)".
I realize it's not the most efficient way to work, but I like my code to read like instructions. There's nothing reduce will do that a for loop won't accomplish and the for loop (+ an accumulator, of course) is more clearly "readable" than reduce. If I read map, I know what's going on. If I read filter, I know what's going on. If I read reduce, I have to figure out what's going on, even if I'm pretty sure what is going on. If I could rely on reduce to always give me back an element of the input array, I would use it more. But since it can give back anything, I prefer the simplicity of a for loop.
[0] I don't have any suggestions for "better" names because the whole operation is hard to sum up in a word? "dispatch" makes sense, as a function dispatching a function over each element in an array, but it masks the concept of accumulation from return values. "transform" is accurate, but hardly descriptive at all. the list goes on. It's an undeniably useful little function, it's just hard to make it easy to understand and therefore debug.
You really should listen to me. If you need some time to think it over, I understand. It's a lot to consider and you've got a lot in your plate. I'll check in soon - would tomorrow be okay? If you need more time, just tell me when.
vs
You really should listen to me. I'll give you a day to think it over before I take further action.
Same information, but the latter assumes a position of authority (I, the person in charge, will be the provider of the time you will receive), and then uses that position to provide an ostensible benevolence as a way to mitigate the implied follow up of non-benevolence. The threat is introduced as the power disparity. The person in power has leverage over the less powerful and the threat is that they will use it. Remove the power disparity, and the implication of threat is also removed.
Tailscale just moved up in my priorities list. Was going to host my next website with hostinger, but now I'm going to at least try to run a personal server with tailscale to make it public. I might not be able to figure it all out, and may end up going with the VPS route, but this gave me some appreciation for the company that makes me willing to try the less familiar method.
If nothing else, this blog post certainly invites scrutiny over how much feelings affect what classifications feel comfortable.
Though, I will admit that I never include cooking in that. Food, for some reason, has never felt, to me, like "content". Can't say I've ever interrogated why.
I don't particularly like the term "content creator". It feels too blunt and sterile to be particularly useful. But it does seem to be generally useful in how wide-reachingly descriptive it is.
I know hosting an entire sign up process and user content is not something you can just build and forget about, so my thought was that a sufficiently decent website could bundle a package that could be hosted on existing organization infrastructure. A zip file of the user's content that they could upload to dropbox/drive/sharepoint/etc. Then the consumer page would match a url slug to a package file and serve the content that way.
It's... a lot of stuff for a quick workaround project. And it's a pathology of an engineer to make solutions where solutions aren't needed. So grain of salt on any of that. But I did want to clarify since you were willing to engage with the concept, as understood. Hopefully this proposition strikes you as less concerning/illegal! I never want to steal anyone's work or infrastructure. I just believe that better alternatives - even ones borne of seeing how badly other people are doing it - can and should win out, if people ever provide them.
One criticism, though: I wish you would have made a simple form-based alternative to the app's population mechanism, rather than just make the one-off consumer for yourself(/those you shared with). Definitely way more work and not something you should have to do. But that would have been a cherry on top. Not only prevent needing the app for viewing, but also removing future incentive for an organization turning to an app like that in the first place.
Honestly, though, I'm most intrigued by your P2P solution. I've built a couple of web apps as custom html elements that use indexedDB for storage and I've been trying to figure out the sweet spot for syncing the data between apps. I think this nostr relay hits the mark as something people can feel comfortable not self hosting, while power users can host their own solution. Seems like a great solution, to me! Any advice as to some footguns with the approach? I'm very interested in giving it a try myself[0], so any notes you think would prevent some re-work would be really appreciated!
[0] as a public domain/oss-licensed module, if there's a reasonable method of packaging it as a standalone library
Since you've actually started a social media site, I wonder if you have any insight on that? You say you believe in this project; what is it that you think is valuable about letting everyone talk to everyone, as opposed to exclusive and curated spaces for people that semi-self-select based on community interests and values, like forums? Separately, why do you think that removing organizations/brands and psuedo users is going to be the crux of the solution?
Honestly looking to have my mind changed. But mostly just curious.
Now my focus is to be able to publish high quality games that run well on those anbernic/miyoo/ayn-style handheld devices. Those things are actually priced for consumers and the ones that have card slots provide a method for physical media. And of course, using those as a floor, the games could always upscale for more powerful machines.
I'm just so tired of this continual march toward investor appeasement at the expense of the consumers. They're games. They're entertainment. For people to play. Not how I want them to play them; how people want to play them. People shouldn't have to have an account to play them. They shouldn't have to invest a month of rent to play them. They shouldn't have to worry about me revoking their ability to play them. It's just so frustrating to see how far we've gotten from "drop in a quarter and enjoy". The industry is in sad shape and getting sadder by the day.
Last I was told about it, there was no way to delete stuff from IPFS. Nothing enforceable, at least. Setting aside that public stuff is "impossible" to delete on the internet, there's something appealing to me about being able to shut off my server. Feels like that is less possible with IPFS hosted content.
Does anyone have some perspective for me about removing content?
No perfectly logical actor would ever argue with how someone is feeling. It's impossible for a second party to know or rationalize, and the person with the direct evidence is giving you their best representation of the feelings. To argue that someone doesn't feel what they say they feel is tantamount to ignoring direct evidence which negates any practical value of the argument. It's this not worth having.
On the other hand, if what you are actually trying to argue is whether they are being truthful, or reasonable about their feelings, those are arguments that do have a practical result of deciding something or understanding something better. The more you dig in to why people are feeling the way they are feeling, the more you can reckon with what that means for whatever the disagreement is. Of course, it cuts both ways; if someone telling you that they feel a certain way makes you feel a certain way, it's only reasonable to interrogate why you are feeling that way about it. But then, that gets further toward the most salient part: most of the time when it comes to feelings, an argument is the wrong tool for resolving disagreement. In my experience, open ended discussion that focuses on each individuals' feelings without consideration for correctness is more productive than any sort of confrontational method like an argument.
I credit my mom for teaching me very early on that the POINT of argument is to come to a decision or understanding, not to determine right or wrong or assign any credit or blame. She was insatiable in running down every technicality. I learned to ask her, "okay, so how does that help with what we're doing?", which she usually had no answer to. That might sound antagonistic, but it was really just a personality thing. She would say, just as matter-of-factly, that it didn't help, it just was true. She has no malice, and no intention of "being right". She just couldn't help but be pedantic. Something about the way her mind works. Luckily, she's working as a quality control supervisor for a warehouse, where the details are essential. Nice when things can work out like that.
The point crystallized for me when I met one of the best developers I've ever known. He would calmly and firmly insist on his absolute correctness until you were blue in the face. But the second you gave him even a hint that he could be wrong, he would run down your point to its conclusions and then adjust his stance without ever changing disposition. You were wrong without question until you gave him any reason to believe you weren't. At that point, he validated his argument against your new information and changed his position without any equivocation or excuses. Just "oh, okay, you mean this? Now I see what you mean. Yes, you're right, that will work.". Sometimes he would laugh at himself for not getting it, and he would always be upfront about being wrong if you insisted he acknowledge it. But he didn't offer up any humility because now we had an answer and could move forward. No reason to dwell on the wrong stuff. It's still my favorite working relationship. I get so tired of the effusive repiping of the whole argument to assign right and wrong that is so common in corporate spaces. Feels like such a waste of time, once you've experienced true absence of ego. I still think of him as a kind of compiler. Provide exactly the right info and get what you want. Provide the wrong info and there will be no way to move forward until that is reconciled. As a dev, it's a breath of fresh air from humans who are often so far from strict logic.
Very relieved to admit I was wrong about this verdict and even happier I didn't put money on it, but it doesn't undo the damage they have already done and I don't have any tolerance for faux centrism that equivocates about the pure nonsense being legitimized by our current judicial slate.
Instead of learning about addiction, it taught me a ton about socializing. Sharing a cigarette with a romantic interest is such a low friction way to be able to keep close enough to have a conversation, and subtly reinforce intimacy. And after I quit, I would bring a pack to any party I went to and not tell anybody until someone was asking. There was a double whammy of providing one for a stranger, and saving a friend from having to donate one.
By the end of the night, when everybody was either trying to bum one or find someone sober enough to make a run to the gas station, my reputation for both having cigarettes and not smoking made me pretty popular. It was also really nice that when people praised me for it (mildly; "that's really cool of you, man") my stock response was "yeah, no worries. I know how great it would be if someone had a Dr pepper for me when I was dry", which made a lot of people offer me my favorite soda all the time.
I still can't stand smoking, and have only had a dozen or so in the decade since then, strictly for ingratiating myself to people. But there is nothing out there like cigarettes for socializing. I'm with a lot of other commenters here in wondering how much we've lost by stigmatizing it without ever reconciling with the (trivial, in comparison) benefits.