That's because Musk doesn't understand what he bought and lacks the finesse to manage it productively.
And that's a good thing, because if someone as toxic and unhinged as Musk understood how SM really works, it would be a global disaster.
We've already seen what happens with that in the MSM space. So far, SM has only had fragmentary versions of that kind of propaganda monolith - Cambridge Analytica, bot farms, and so on.
Those are all bad enough. But a global platform that existed purely for propaganda and disinformation while pretending not to would be horrific.
Near ir LEDs are also cheap and easy to power, with its what's in remote controls. Low pressure sodium lights aren't. I remember using them in postgrad labs and it wasn't fun.
Alternatively you could use a solid state laser or narrow band LEDs if you need the band to isolate to be in the visible spectrum too.
M4 is an amazing tool and the only programming language to get quotation/evaluation right. This confuses everyone as no other language treats quotation and evaluation correctly, including all current lisp descendants.
It is essentially a lisp but hidden behind `' rather than ().
People think in binaries whether they realise it or not. The idea that something was lost or weakened when writing became the dominant means of encoding information for long term storage is a difficult idea for most people to grapple with.
It used to be normal to memorise hour long speeches in the ancient world. Today people struggle with 20 lines. You can make the case that nothing of value was lost, but something was definitely lost.
I don't understand how we can all agree that remembering how much an operation hurts is a bad thing but constantly digging up things that upset you is a good thing.
Meditating on a broken leg won't make it hurt any less, meditating on how horrible your childhood was won't let you have a good one.
You just copy office 97 and can't go wrong with it. The problem with having UX people on a team is that they need to jusity their existence which they do by change for changes sake. I've yet to meet anyone who appreciates ms office UX changes that happen every 5 years and move everything around.
> The problem with having UX people on a team is that they need to jusity their existence which they do by change for changes sake.
This can be said just about any profession working in software. The real issue is that nobody wants to accept that software can be finished especially management - because then you don’t have anything to sell.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were designers who fought tooth and nail against arbitrary changes. Surprise surprise good UX designers understand UX. But its like the developer who fights for keeping the PHP website because it works.
Sorry i just dont like treatment non-programming workers as something lesser. So many software companies are sucessfull despite having fucked up technology (by programmers). And its sucessful only because they have great design or marketing or sales team.
Software always has bugs that need to be fixed. It is never finished because it has an infinite number of ways it can go wrong. The same is not true for any of the non-software parts of software design.
If you're a software shop you should have everyone who doesn't write code on a contract and not be afraid to terminate them when the product is mature.
A software can only ever be mature for a period of time. Technology advances, work practices change, and your software should adapt to it. Imagine text editing stopped at Notepad, or image editing at Photoshop 1.
Also, your second paragraph leaks of Americanism and undoubtedly, people are happier and healthier with stable jobs.
Not only does that metaphor not hold up (is UX obsolete in your opinion?), it's absolutely false.
This is software after all - surely you're aware how throwing out the old solution and trying to build a "better" one results in a long slog of making the same mistakes the old team/product made and fixed (but could have warned you about if they were kept around).
- the first is that the office paradigm suck, no matter the specific implementation. We need to teach people about good desktop computer usage paradigms, like "hey, learn LaTeX, maybe ConTeXt not a WYSIWYG tool", "hey learn R, or Python not a spreadsheet", and that's sound nearly impossible even if (I've tried) it's not on NEW/computer virgin users;
- the second is "the rest of the world", a Public Administration must deal with Citizens, let's say in EU we have started to roll out ID card as smart-card usable also for on-line authentication BUT most users do not have a reader, so many have invented crappy solution to use a smartphone NFC support to read them while authenticate on a desktop. The result is a good idea, having a smart card to identify users, a thing we should have spread since at least 20+ years in the past, turned into a mess. Similarly we have "certified mails" where a third party certify message delivery like a postal mail delivery, but again they are implemented in messy ways and nothing is really uniform across EU states.
These are the biggest obstacles not the software per se.
> You just copy office 97 and can't go wrong with it.
Clippy had its debut in Office 97, so let's please NOT copy that one. Other than that, yeah, I agree. Anything up to and including Office 2003 really, those were all great. (Also includes one of my favorite, underrated Office Apps, InfoPath)
I fully agreee. It's similar to older versions of Visual Studio.
On the other hand, I'm annoyed by the omnipresent File, Edit, View, ... stuff in the menu bar. Even if those functions make no sense for a given application. And then I have to open several brittle layers there to reach a certain function.
I think UI research can do better. And by that I don't mean stashing everything into a hamburger menu.
* Looking at the context of what the user is doing and dynamically showing options
* Using those dynamic interactions to surface lesser-known but relevant features that were previously hidden deep in menus along with hundreds of other features
* Adding a search bar for the user to explain what they're doing or find something they know the name of
But it returns the same results google does. I even asked people on here to give me the queries that kagi is best at. Even then google still returned the same results.
Like the OP said, Google's shittiness is a choice and one they can turn off whenever too many people look like they are about to leave.
What I like about it is the ability to bubble up domains that are more useful to me and also downrank or filter out the ever growing domains of seo filler.
The ability to rank domains up and down is the main reason I feel kagi is worth the price. A few coding sites are raised. Quora, pinterest, and a few other noise sites are blocked. It's like Google from the early 2000s when you could find what you were looking for on the first page.
It is slightly better search results compared to Google, but only just. The game changer in search is seeing the results without stupid ads. If they offered just that feature for $0.99/month, I would switch. Their current price is simply too high for daily use.
Google ads are inline and pose as search results. “Sponsored results” are a deceptive name for “paid advertisements.” The first actual result is often below the fold on modern Google.
Of course the act of visiting Google is the beginning of the monetization. It’s not just an adware company it’s a spyware company as well. This is why their service is free.
And some results from the GNU Guix mailing list. !guix searches with a custom lens[0] that I added for Guix specific documentation and resources like the mailing list archives, and the IRC log archives.
I can combine this bang with the quick summary feature (accessed either by adding !q to the search as well, writing a query that ends in a ?, or pressing the q button after loading the results), which is essentially the same as the info boxes that Google will add sometimes, except it only shows up on Kagi if you specifically request for it.
I have also mapped versioned documentation for some things to the latest documentation using url redirects[1]. I have also manually hidden or raised lots of sites that I don't care about or care a lot about. This manual curation makes it so your search results get better over time, without having something like Google try to deeply understand who you are and what you want to try to figure out what search results are best for you.
Kagi specific features have been very integrated into my workflow personally. I definitely find the subscription worth it.
