I think we're about to see an explosion in "mini apps". It's taken 10+ years for us to catch up to WeChat and China but this regulation and other issues are going to block a lot of innovation and we're better off surfacing tiny PWA or SPA like apps that get loaded in native apps or we just do away with that entirely. The time has come.
Elon's vision for the X "everything" app. It's great for them, now every single thing you do has the full gamut of privacy permissions. Playing a "mini-game"? Full accurate GPS coordinates available to it because you also have the ride-hailing "mini-app".
We got here iteratively..not all at once. So the path back...it's iterative. I shouldn't even say back. We're not going back. We have to go in a new direction. And again it's evolutionary. So ultimately a lot of these big systems and big tech companies aren't going anywhere and they will be integral to all infrastructure for the foreseeable future whether that be technical, financial or related to public services. But as individuals we can slowly shift some of our efforts elsewhere in ways that it might matter.
Here's my small contribution to that. https://github.com/micro/mu - an app platform without ads, algorithms or tracking.
Mastodon really isn't the answer. You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits..not everything needs to be expressed online. Genuinely I think people need something else. The format fails.
What's the alternative? I don't know. But I'm trying to figure it out. Why? Because walking away from it all isn't the right answer. Why? Because we leave behind all those people addicted to it. So I think there are new tools to be created but they strip away the addictive behaviours and try to avoid the forms of media that caused the issue in the first place.
I'm glad you said so. So many people take the wrong lessons from social media, and just keep trying to rebuild it more-or-less as-is and inherit most of the flaws that made it awful in the first place. What People fail to understand is that in a very narrow sense, it's better to think of social media like alcohol. It feels good to get a buzz and relax, but the next day you're worse off. Drinking a lot of the time makes your life actively worse even if in the moment you feel good. Social media should be thought of through that lens -- if you think you want to preserve "the good parts," you're like an alcoholic who keeps finding a reason to continue drinking. "No, the problem was just drinking alone. Now that I'm drinking at the bar, socially, it's OK!" To an extent, but mostly it's harming you.
Alcohol is bad health wise but probably is used to reduce the harm of social imposed stress between people.
So, If I think about it "like alcohol", it would mean "what is the root cause of not being able to keep contact with people". It might be that common social mixing places are probably much fewer than hundred of years ago - be it the local bar, gathering after a day of work in the field, public bathhouse, etc. Many of activities in the modern world seem very individual - maybe that is the problem, and people being social try to replace it and get tricked into worse things.
The difference is the "algorithmic" timeline (meaning ads) you get with Facebook, Insta, and co compared to the strictly chronological timeline you get on the Fediverse equivalents (Mastodon, Pixelfed). That it's less addictive, or at least not in the doom scrolling type of way, is more a consequence. Aka the enshitification argument.
Masto specifically is also a Twitter not Facebook replacement, with everyone soliloquizing past each other rather than holding a genuine conversation.
For the actual "good" Facebook use cases such as keeping in contact with school/uni veterans or other closed group, there's friendica, but it's nowhere near Fb in terms of volume.
I think the problem is that people are lonely in ways that the medium can't address well, but does address to some lesser degree, so it elicits lopsided engagement. You're this whole person but people only ever react to this quirk or that one because those quirks come through better online, and over time those two quirks become a larger share of your personality. We end up with things like looksmaxxing--because pictures go online well, and it happens at the expense of whatever other characteristics of that person don't go online well.
I've been imagining a social medium which finds temporary peers via one of your phone's radios--so it broadcasts and gathers rotating public keys as you ride the same bus with people or share an elevator with them--and then your feed contains whatever they're posting, but only for 48 hours or something (unless you decide to make the connection permanent). That way when you see something cool in your feed, you're well positioned to go be social in meatspace.
Like I get why you don't bring your guitar on the bus, same reason I don't bring my drums on the bus, but if a few hours later I saw a video of you making some music I might be like "hey lets get together and jam" next time I see you.
The issue is the fantasy of social media doesn't convert well to reality. I've reached out numerous times "to jam" with people who have openly expressed a desire to, and... ...nothing. It's like a full conversation stopper. It's weird.
As far as I can tell the social anxiety takes hold, where someone might have their perceived fear of "being bad" exposed, so they recede back into their insular, online-only personas.
I take it you're a musician, and so I really think the only way is to take your drums (or guitar, or whatever) to the park or a local 'town square' and just get down to business. People will interact with you in whichever way they do, but at least it will be real, and possibly lead to real fruitful relationships.
> You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits
There is a lot of that, and somehow it is acceptable online, while when you project it to face to face situations it would be really rude behavior. Like in a chat room when you ask someone something with an explicit mention of their handle, only to see the presence indicator pass it by without any response. Not even taking time to give a Yes, No, or Too busy now.
Or how in a private group someone who was invited suddenly leaves the group membership, hops off the channel. Comparative to walking out of a meeting without saying a word and provide a reason. A simple "I enjoyed it here, but I have to spend my time elsewhere" is just simply a polite thing to do, and costs only 2 seconds of time.
> you project it to face to face situations it would be really rude behavior. Like in a chat room when you ask someone something with an explicit mention of their handle
The difference is that in person you as the asker are more polite about it also. You don't burst into an unrelated meeting just to ask someone a question. Or elbow your way through a group of friends having a conversation just to ask something unrelated.
But in chat rooms (and emails) you do. Easy for folks to get in a situation where dozens of people every day demand their attention and expect a response.
> Like in a chat room when you ask someone something with an explicit mention of their handle, only to see the presence indicator pass it by without any response.
Asking someone a question online does not obligate them to take time to answer it, or even explain why they don’t feel like doing so.
You’re not in a conversation with everyone who is online, so the comparison to in person conversations doesn’t hold.
> Not even taking time to give a Yes, No, or Too busy now.
People are doing other things while using their computers and you should not expect to be able to commandeer their attention on demand by tagging them. Again the comparison to in-person social norms doesn’t hold because you can’t see if this person is busy with something else.
I find this sense of entitlement to other people’s instant time and attention to be very negative for any digital dynamic. Whenever someone with this attitude joins a group chat it leads to people turning their statuses to Do Not Disturb all of the time or even leaving the group because they don’t want to feel obligated to drop what they’re doing and respond to that one person every time that person drops a tag in chat.
It depends on the context and situation. You are right for some random public channel. I am talking about for instance chatrooms where a small remote team joins for the express purpose to collaborate closely, and I often find these weird deviations from how you would behave offline in similar setting to be very detrimental for communication and productivity killers. Part of it is about setting expectations and fostering the 'room culture', and that can help improve things. But there is an overall behavior change to the online world. Comparable perhaps (but different in the details) to "road rage", a general behavior shift people have once they step into a car and are insulated from others by their hotrods window screens. And 'commandeering' never works well, btw.
> I am talking about for instance chatrooms where a small remote team joins for the express purpose to collaborate closely
I am too.
A chat room is not equivalent to a face to face conversation. You’re not in an always-on social engagement with those people.
If you need to switch to having face to face conversational norms, you need to request a time for that.
It’s not reasonable to expect that someone’s online indicator means you are entitled to request that they drop what they’re doing and respond to you. Online does not mean not busy.
Nah, you generalize things too much. A chatroom is whatever you make of it. Generally speaking all the social communication patterns we have in the offline world, have equivalents in online communication. A chatroom is but a channel to convey these patterns. A chatroom doesn't have behavioral norms attached to it. The assumption that this is the case, may be a large contributor to many social media problem areas.
Another example. A project chatroom, and the agreement is that comms are async. But there are moments where multiple members are real-time in the chat. It may well happen that you say "Since we chatting now @JohnDoe, we have a decision to make on this and that". John Doe answers "For sure, let's do that", so you give a follow-up with elaboration. Only to suddenly find John unresponsive for 5 days.
That is a ridiculous situation if you depicted that to happen to you offline in a face to face setting.
I think the challenge is that the addictive formats will naturally outcompete the healthy ones because they’re, well, addicting. They exert a force pulling people into their orbit and starving anything designed for healthier (less frequent) engagement.
I don’t think you can do it without pushing people away somehow. It wouldn’t have to be regulatory, but I don’t know how else. Social shame might work if you could convince people it’s dorky and cringe to be on it too much, but the insidious nature of it is that the social media itself starts to comprise a big chunk of people’s social universe so it’s self-reinforcing.
id say maybe marketing? make a "healthy" social network and frame the other one as really bad for you?
I wonder if there is anything to learn from other additive things? like a niccotine gum mode. a social network that starts you off in addictive mode and tapers you down to something better?
I think we're talking fast food rather than nicotine.
We know that fast food is bad for us. But fast food companies keep putting the things that we like into it. So a lot of people, when tasting actual, real, good-for-you, food decide that they prefer fast food. Other people are aware that fast food is bad for them and prefer real food. It's a choice that we leave up to the individual. Unfortunately we then allow the fast food companies to advertise so they can affect the choice.
We don't really have an answer for this as a culture. We should make the fast food companies responsible for the harms they're causing, but we don't have a mechanism for that. We could stop them advertising, as some countries have done, but that starts a whole process of questions about what the government can and can't do that ends up in bad places.
I think you are right, it's more fast food, or maybe to extend the metaphor its like processed or ultra-processed food. Systematically prepared with lots of ingredients to give you something that is "food" but has been modified to amp up the sugar and salt to levels that make it basically impossible to stop eating. It also loses almost all of its nutritional value and is often cheaper than real food. Just like social media is cheap because its been infused with ads and data tracking sales. A "free range organic" social network would have to cost more.
We do have gov. mechanisms for controlling what can be sold as food so it seems plausible, but those only happened after we went through a period of time
where companies would literally put poison into bread as a filler, and the whole rotten meat packing industry thing. Maybe we are in that phase now but even so i dont expect there to be enough of a social
movement to control these things (and as you say... how is tricky)
still "real food" might not have the reach of mcdonalds, but it does exit and thrive. maybe there is market for a healthy network? based on the comments here and a lot of anecdotes, I suspect there is some latent demand.
I would like to see social networks that facilitates real life, face-to-face encounters to a much larger extent that the current state of affairs. The Fediverse has the pieces to this puzzle, but I do not know of one project that combines them in the right way yet. We do have Mobilizon for events, we have Mastodon and all the other similar projects for sharing and commenting, but we need something that puts the pieces together in a new configuration.
I do think projects like Bonfire is onto something. I will set up an instance to explore the details sometime this year, when time permits it.
But converting online chance encounters into actual meet-ups, social gatherings and dates is where we should be heading. It would be really nice to have this in a space without ads and the influence of the large corporations!
VR/Group voice chat/Group messaging is fine too. For centuries, people have created and maintained meaningful relationships while physically and geographically separated. The circumstances of life do not always allow people to meet face-to-face. One of the worst sins of the post-pandemic "return to normalcy" was the wholesale firebombing of remote options for connecting with people.
The problem isn't whether the meeting is digital or not, it's whether the platform (a physical space or an app) facilitates high-fidelity person-to-person and small group communication consistently over time (the norm for healthy human community), or if it's set up to encourage unnatural para-social relationships and dysfunctional, anti-social communication styles.
I was thinking about social networks that is not Facebook. The challenge is to make something that can compete in this respect. It would be so nice to have the in-person part, but without the ads, scams, data theft and blackbox algorithms!
I suppose, if we reduce this problem to it's core - the question remains - who pays for the servers? That's the reason we don't have a idealistic web platforms - or am I wrong?
I run my own instance at home. Not everybody can do this, but if more nerds hosted instances for friends and family, it would get us somewhere at least :)
The goal is not instant world domination, but a organically grown network, providing an off-ramp for those that have had enough and are ready to take some action. Facilitating real world meet-ups would help, I think!
It is modular and built to be adapted to the different needs of online communities. They also have a more fine-grained boundaries system that allows to post only to pre-defined groups (or Circles in Diaspora / Google+ lingo) etc. I don't think they have an Events module yet, but technically speaking, this could be implemented.
Yeah the first three paragraphs of the article really resonated strongly and then the fourth was an ad for mastodon, which is only slightly less bad IMHO.
When you say leave behind...do you mean you lose something by not interacting with them, or do you mean that you have some kind of duty to help get them un-addicted? I don't think you are obligated to go hangout at your local bar once a week just because alcoholics exist.
We have a duty to help them..and I don't think society gets this right in other places. We're not proactive about it. In religion and islam there's something called dawah, effectively preaching, but the idea is you're calling people to something with higher purpose and to eliminate all these bad habits. And I think it's the same whether online or offline. We need to help people. First you have to help yourself but then you have to go back and get everyone else. It speaks to a moral imperative we should all have to help our fellow man.
I don't know that you can broadly say "religion" I'm not a Buddhist but from my surface level understanding of Buddhism it might be the case that that person needs to save themselves when they have had some negative experiences with social media. (This is overly simplistic I'm not saying its all on the individual but it's hard to summarize this point in only a couple sentences).
I do think there's some people who have fallen into social media bad habits and can fairly easily be helped to correct bad habits, other people seem to go to social media because it actually aligns with who they are. I've met several people (strangers) who seemed like they brought social media behavior into real life in a way that made me think social media gave them a platform for their personality, not the other way around. They were pretty jarring experiences that really stuck with me.
It’s not a small group of people that we can afford to “lose”. It’s widespread in an entire generation (at least), a fact that threatens our society as a whole.
Breaking an addiction is a personal journey not a problem to be solved at scale. I'd say it's potentially impossible to put the cat back into the bag. You can draw a corollary between obesity and social media. People will die fat because of their obesity disease, and I suspect the same might be true of their social media disease as well.
The alternative is you realizing social media is 'bad for you,' and taking steps to mitigate habitual dopamine release yourself, them smiling wryly at all the people compuslively checking their phones. It's all you can do, really.
How? If you like playing Warhammer, go to Games Workshop. If you like climbing, go to a bouldering gym. I appreciate that there are probably some counter examples. But part of this, in my mind, needless demand for tech spaces to meet other hobbyists is catering to an over-reliance on technology. Yes, there are reasons you might want to screen people or groups - for instance, women looking for safety. But surely the existing tools for such a problem are good enough? Instagram and Facebook groups? Or Reddit or Hacker News? The problem is people become chronically attached to these services and convince themselves they need them to function socially. Which is complete myth.
Also, depending on your interests, you may not want to meet people IRL right away. Talking to anonymous strangers is often a good way to learn more about sensitive subjects without taking too much risk.
But yeah, I'm with you, we rely too much on these services at the moment.
What we take for granted is it was always addicting, as far back in the 90s when we didn't call it social media. There was just a smaller privileged demographic frequenting it. That said, as much as it was the wild-west, it was probably "better" for us then than it is now.
I've known many people who met through games. They offer something similar, in the sense that you can meet new people and learn about them.
The synchronous nature of multiplayer games leaves most of this expression implicit rather than explicit, though, so for some people it doesn't fit the same need. It's a kind of role-play.
I think most people are, for lack of a better metaphor, blood-sucking vampires for honest, explicit, and carefully-crafted communication. People are pleased when I offer it, but they struggle to offer it back, so I learn to not bother. Most relationships degenerate into expressing things better left unsaid, or being entirely superficial.
The problem is social, not technical. But we've created a subsection of the populace who can only see things through the technical. They go out with their hammers looking for nails.
I've been thinking about this for a long time, and started to poke around with implementing something, I have more ideas but a bit of a chicken and egg problem, if people use it I'll keep working on it and trying to improve it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46672734 - the end goal is very very very little/specific discoverability on the platform, even narrower than I have implemented today.
Wow I'm impressed. I didn't actually think we'd see it encoded on chips. Or well I knew some layer of it could be, some sort of instruction set and chip design but this is pretty staggering. It opens the door to a lot of things. Basically it totally destroys the boundaries of where software will go but I also think we'll continue to see some generic chips show up that hit this performance soon enough. But the specialised chips with encoded models. This could be what ends up in specific places like cars, planes, robots, etc where latency matters. Maybe I'm out of the loop, I'm sure others and doing it including Google.
Well that was a crazy month. Kudos to this guy for recognising his goals which is not to start another company. It is very easy to get intoxicated by the idea of something being so successful that you can capture the value, especially after having struggled for so long with a previous company. I think it's every founder's dream to like just hit lightning. But this stuff is incredibly stressful and it's important to be able to look into the future and ask yourself. Is this what I want? Is this what I need in my life? And the answer here is no. This person can deliver value elsewhere quite easily and get the reward without as much stress. We should all take a lesson from this whirlwind journey. Do not attempt to be like Peter. You can admire the work he's done. Do not attempt to replicate it. Appreciate it for what it is. For yourself as an observer or a user it's a lesson. But also to note that this is an anomaly. You will never replicate it. A lot of people feel a little bit of envy or jealousy. I used to feel that when I was working on something and I saw other people succeed and I wished that that had happened to me. But if it was meant for you it would find you. And the fact that it hasn't found you means that it was not meant for you. We all have our role to play. There is something important for us to do and that's not necessarily something that is world famous or amasses thousands of GitHub stars. If after reading this it's still bothering you. Take a walk and reflect on the good things in your life.
This feels like such a defeatist take. The ideas time had come. For luck to strike you have to be in the market for it. Just keep shipping and playing. We don’t “all have our role to play” but there are a lot of roles that need playing
But that's the point it's not defeatist. It's more about saying there is something for you to do. There is a role for you to play but that's not necessarily the role that you see somebody else playing. So sometimes we see somebody else doing something and we think whoa that person is successful and we become envious of that and then we want to emulate that. But we forget that maybe that's not what's intended for us. Maybe that person is really good at that thing or that's what was for them. But for us we might be good at something else and there might be something that we are uniquely positioned to do so. The point is not to be defeatist but not to focus on what somebody else has right. Focus on what you have and focus on what your ability is and focus on what's going to improve your quality of life and the people around you and don't focus on the negative aspects of what is effectively fomo
Yea sorry it probably comes across as pre-determined but you as a person have likely spent a long time becoming good at something and have a certain personality and experience based on your life, so I guess what I'm saying is, that sort of creates a role for you, and when you understand what that is, you can really hone in and do good work. Sometimes its not obvious to us and when we see something we might want to go after it. That's fine. I guess my point is, don't look at the shiny thing and chase that. It's not what's going to fulfil you in life e.g Peter probably wasn't chasing the shiny thing. He was trying to solve a personal problem and it resonated with a lot of people. But when people see something be successful or this kind of wildride where you end up with a hugely successful project and go to a huge company like OpenAI, they focus on the wrong things. The inner insecurity takes over and you wonder, why not me, and how do I do that. But essentially it comes back to, solve problems. Solve interesting problems, work on things that you think are meaningful, and whatever the success might be, that's for someone else to decide. But I think people chase "fame", cause that's what we essentially see. Validation through popularity. It won't fulfil you. Trust me. But yes to your point. We're coming at the same thing from different angles.
What if the thing that excites you can't pay you money, and you find your overall life unsatisfying because of the things you have to do to earn money?
Sorry, went a bit off rails there.
> Do not attempt to be like Peter. You can admire the work he's done. Do not attempt to replicate it. Appreciate it for what it is. For yourself as an observer or a user it's a lesson. But also to note that this is an anomaly. You will never replicate it.
This can be said about a lot of successful projects, products, and companies. I’d argue that, by all means, do try to be like Peter. Try to tinker around and make something new the world has never seen before.
He made something that excited many people, and I don’t think it’s the correct take to consider this an anomaly. It’s someone who was already known in the development community trying something new and succeeding.
He probably means when I took VC funding in 2019 and started to rip apart the framework to try build a platform and business. The 2-3 years after were very chaotic.
My goal was never to serve the community but instead leverage it to build a business. Ultimately that failed. The truth is it's very difficult to sustain open source. Go-micro was never the end goal. It was always a stepping stone to a platform e.g microservices PaaS. A lot of hard lessons learned along the way.
Now with Copilot and AI I'm able to go back and fix a lot of issues but nothing will fix trust with a community or the passage of time. People move on. It served a certain purpose at certain time.
Note: The company behind connect-rpc raised $100m but for more of a build system around protobuf as opposed to the rpc framework but this was my thinking as well. The ability to raise $10-20m would create the space to build the platform off the back of the success of the framework.
Obligatory "this is why I love HN" but even for that standard, this is is an incredibly open account, thank you for the insight and sorry it hasn't seemed to pan out quite how you hoped. Still sounds like you got your bag, built something cool, and have your "micro" share of Internet legacy, so not too bad eh?
Oh man I'm tired. This reminds me of the docker era. It's all moving fast. Everyone's raising money. And 24 months from now it's all consolidating. It's all a nice hype game when you raise the funding but the execution depends on people finding value in your products and tools. I would argue yes many of these things are useful but I'd also argue there's far too much overlap, too many unknowns and too many people trying to reinvent the whole process. And just like the container era I think we're going to see a real race to zero. Where most of the dev tools get open sourced and only a handful of product companies survive, if that. I want to wish everyone the best of luck because I myself have raised money and spent countless years building Dev tools. This is no easy task especially as the landscape is changing. I just think when you raise $60m and announce a cli. You're already dead, you just don't know it. I'm sorry.
I see the value since I built a similar tool different approach. Then there's Beads, which is what inspired my project, with some tens of thousands of developers using it or more now? I'm not sure how they figure how many users they have.
In my case I don't want my tools to assume git, my tools should work whether I open SVN, TFS, Git, or a zip file. It should also sync back into my 'human' tooling, which is what I do currently. Still working on it, but its also free, just like Beads.
I wouldn't wanna be in the rat race myself, but I know people who salivate at the opportunity to create some popular dev tool to get acquired by MS, Google or Amazon or whichever of the big tech companies that decide this could work well in their cloud ecosystem.
On the one hand they think these things provide 1337x productivity gains, can be run autonomously, and will one day lead to "the first 1 person billion dollar company".
And in complete cognitive dissonance also somehow still have fantasies of future 'acquisition' by their oppressors.
Why acquire your trash dev tool?
They'll just have the agents copy it. Hell, you could even outright steal it, because apparently laundering any licensing issues through LLMs short circuits the brains of judges to protohuman clacking rocks together levels.
I think there are 2 parts here. That persona you’re describing (startup cofounder or engineer being paid mostly in equity) is a good subset of the people here. If I had to pull a number out of my shiny metal ass, I’d say it’s 30%. Those people both loath big tech, and dream of the day they are acquired by it. It’s not really the contradiction you think it’s. Another 45% of people here are tech-savvy Reddit refuges who say Reddit things.
As to why would those company acquire a startup instead of having an agent generate it for them. Why has big tech ever acquired tech startups when they could have always funded it in house? It’s not always a technical answer. Sometimes it’s internal Political fights, time to market, reduce competition, PR reasons or they just wanna hire the founder to lead a team for that internally and the only way he’ll agree is if there is an exit plan for his employees. I sat in “acquire or build” discussions before. The “how hard would it be to just do that?” Was just one of many inputs into the discussion. Ever wondered why big big companies acquire a smaller one, not invest in it, then shut it down few years later?
With 60 million you could have waited for a bigger announcement? There's "AI fatigue" among the target market for these sorts of tools, advertising unfinished products will take its toll on you later.
I wouldn't call it the new high level language. It's a new JIT. But that's not doing it justice. There's a translation of natural language to a tokenizer and processor that's akin to the earliest days of CPUs. It's a huge step change from punch cards. But there's also a lot to learn. I think we will eventually develop a new language that's more efficient for processing or multiple layers of transformers. Tbh Google is leapfrogging everyone in this arena and eventually we're going to more exotic forms of modelling we've never seen before except in nature. But from an engineering perspective all I can see right now is a JIT.
We all have opinions about ci/cd. Why? Because it's getting between us and what we're attempting to do. In all honesty GitHub actions solves the biggest problem for a lot of Devs, infrastructure management and performance. I have managed a lot of build infrastructure and don't ever want to touch that again. GitHub fixed that for me. My build servers were often more power hungry than my production servers. GitHub fixed that for me. Basically what I'm saying is for 80% of people this is an 80% good enough solution and that's more important than everything else. Can I ship my code quickly. Can I define build deps next my code that everyone can see. Can I debug it, can others contribute to it. It just ticks so many boxes. I hope ci dies a good death because I think people are genuinely just thinking about the wrong problem. Stop making your life more difficult. Appreciate what this solves and move on. We can argue about it until we're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that often the solution that wins isn't the best, it's the one that reduces friction and solves the UX problem. I don't need N ways to configure somehow. I need to focus on what I'm trying to ship and that's not a build server.
reply