3 ms·

> That someone would have been using an equally easy to use user interface running on XMPP/IRC or any other open/interoperable and lightweight protocol with off

by zepto 6y ago

> That someone would have been using an equally easy to use user interface running on XMPP/IRC or any other open/interoperable and lightweight protocol with official extensions built by executing RFC mechanisms all had for years. Possibly so, but what relevance does this have? We still can do all this with open protocols if we want to. When I read comments like yours, I read them as a repudiation of pop-culture. I don’t see the point in that.

bayindirh 6y ago
> Possibly so, but what relevance does this have? Instead of re-inventing proverbial wheels over and over, we could have done much more if we chose to improve the tools we had at that time. > We still can do all this with open protocols if we want to. Yet, we don't. Instead allow web to be centralized and fragmented. At the same time we're trying to decentralize it. > When I read comments like yours, I read them as a repudiation of pop-culture. I don't know where you're coming from (I'm not a native English speaker, I can't completely understand what you're trying to do), but I all I can say that, I do not support wasting that much computational power by not-optimizing and/or inventing inferior things and marketing them as superior. I arrived to this point by hands-on experience. Giving a little more thought to something you develop or just planning a little ahead goes a very very long way in terms of efficiency an performance. > I don’t see the point in that. You may not, and I won't judge you for that. However, I see a more capable future with less effort down the road.
- zepto 6y ago
  > > We still can do all this with open protocols if we want to. > Yet, we don't. Instead allow web to be centralized and fragmented. At the same time we're trying to decentralize it. This speaks to my point about pop-culture. When you say ‘allow’ you are implying that there is someone who could disallow this if they do chose. There isn’t. There are just millions of programmers who weren’t active in the historical era you are comparing to, making products for consumers who also were not around then. This is a pop-culture. It’s what happens when computers become democratized. > I do not support wasting that much computational power by not-optimizing and/or inventing inferior things and marketing them as superior. It doesn’t matter who ‘supports’ this or not. This is what I mean by repudiating pop-culture. > I arrived to this point by hands-on experience. Giving a little more thought to something you develop or just planning a little ahead goes a very very long way in terms of efficiency an performance. Again- this is true, but it’s not really clear what relevance this has. I don’t support the construction of ugly homes that are too small or cheaply designed for people to feel good about. What is missing in my mind is not people like you and I ‘not supporting’ things: it’s an understanding of how to make things better.

by zepto 6y ago

bayindirh 6y ago

> Possibly so, but what relevance does this have? Instead of re-inventing proverbial wheels over and over, we could have done much more if we chose to improve the tools we had at that time. > We still can do all this with open protocols if we want to. Yet, we don't. Instead allow web to be centralized and fragmented. At the same time we're trying to decentralize it. > When I read comments like yours, I read them as a repudiation of pop-culture. I don't know where you're coming from (I'm not a native English speaker, I can't completely understand what you're trying to do), but I all I can say that, I do not support wasting that much computational power by not-optimizing and/or inventing inferior things and marketing them as superior. I arrived to this point by hands-on experience. Giving a little more thought to something you develop or just planning a little ahead goes a very very long way in terms of efficiency an performance. > I don’t see the point in that. You may not, and I won't judge you for that. However, I see a more capable future with less effort down the road.

zepto 6y ago
> > We still can do all this with open protocols if we want to. > Yet, we don't. Instead allow web to be centralized and fragmented. At the same time we're trying to decentralize it. This speaks to my point about pop-culture. When you say ‘allow’ you are implying that there is someone who could disallow this if they do chose. There isn’t. There are just millions of programmers who weren’t active in the historical era you are comparing to, making products for consumers who also were not around then. This is a pop-culture. It’s what happens when computers become democratized. > I do not support wasting that much computational power by not-optimizing and/or inventing inferior things and marketing them as superior. It doesn’t matter who ‘supports’ this or not. This is what I mean by repudiating pop-culture. > I arrived to this point by hands-on experience. Giving a little more thought to something you develop or just planning a little ahead goes a very very long way in terms of efficiency an performance. Again- this is true, but it’s not really clear what relevance this has. I don’t support the construction of ugly homes that are too small or cheaply designed for people to feel good about. What is missing in my mind is not people like you and I ‘not supporting’ things: it’s an understanding of how to make things better.