I think the point was pretty clear if you are able to consider more than one point of view. People who are highly motivated and for whom it could make a life-or-death difference have considerable technical skills in this area in Russia consider Whatsapp to be insecure and prohibit its use, just as in the US, their counterparts consider telegram to be insecure and prohibit its use.
Perhaps you're simply struggling with the concepts here: would it help you to understand things better to add that russia and the US ban the use of Signal by their militaries and intelligence services?
Did you detect an implication that can't be extrapolated from the text without metacontext and secondary unstated axioms, or is your mind totally blank and baffled at what these data points could indicate?
What you are saying is empirically false. Change in a single line of executed code (sometimes even a single character!) can be the difference between a secure and non-secure system.
This must mean that you have been paid not to understand these things. Or perhaps you would be punished at work if you internalized reality and spoke up. In either case, I don't think your personal emotional landscape should take precedence over things that have been proven and are trivial to demonstrate.
Nothing changed, but many people struggle to understand their our own degree of relative ignorance and overvalue high-level details that are leaky abstractions which make the consequentially dissimilar look superficially similar.
The deeper issue is that your product is one of many chatGPT wrappers with no unique hook, not that users can find out you're one of many chatGPT wrappers with no unique hook.
Very curious to know where you have been in the last few years for your to regard openai.com/chat as something known only to specialists and wholesalers. To stick with the sausage-making analogy: this is like someone selling costco hotdogs in the parking lot out of the back of a van for 25% markup because they pre-squeezed the ketchup on it.
How many people in the costco parking lot do you think there are that want costco hotdogs but are unaware of the existence of costco, costco hotdogs, ketchup, and what they cost?
but users do care eventually. they just don’t yet have the vocabulary that “other sausage makers” do. dismissing these concerns implies that outcomes matter and provenance doesn’t, which may be convenient if you’re building wrappers, but it’s corrosive if you care about ecosystems, incentives, and long-term quality when the app is compared to others in the market.
that app is not the only app in the market that focuses on conversation. feedback like this is worth taking seriously rather than waving off.
Cute parable but most rely on child sweatshop labor. Users express "thoughts and prayers" level of care if pressed, but not take up a trend of sewing their shirts to spare kids they will never meet RSI.
Noting competition exists seems focused on the outcome of making money. An obligation that exists in an exploitative economy. Where's your concern for the provenance of such obligations?
Yeah. Every expression of concern is probably something like social desirability bias, appearance of concern while sticking with status quo real effort of zero change. Low effort rhetorical "care".
People express concern about global warming and drive off in their SUV. They're just parroting social script.
I really appreciate this comment. So much of marketing is "puffery" or based on what would be best for the app creator for the audience to believe. Sometimes that lines up with reality, sometimes it doesn't.
In this case the marketing copy seems more like creator wishcasting or living in the past. I've fallen into this trap before too, of creating things as if AI was a secret in my basement and not something of intense focus by a plurality of 20 million+ software developers. Rarely does a technology landscape change so fast.
How you're framing it is helpful as well. Instead of saying "this already exists (so you shouldn't do it)", I think it's valuable to highlight what a competitive space this is. The creator will need to think hard about what they can do to differentiate their offering in 2026, both in marketing and functionality.
I suspect you're right, but what we are and are not surprised by is self-referential rather than evidentiary.
But are we supposed to be content with not being given enough information to make a meaningful differentiation between people with PhDs in human resources and $IDENTITY-studies vs PhDs in organic chemistry and climatology?
When there's hostility towards discernment, it makes me feel like the two political strains are working together to use a one-two punch of credentialism and anti-intellectualism to erode empirical investigation into reality.
This is not a good line of reasoning since it would just as surely apply to such fanciful cult terms like "I'm using fargate with docker over ECS to integrate with ceph, but I'm considering switching to talos and EKS."
It is valuable to use unique terms of art that are not heavily overloaded and this is what gastown's terminology is intended to do, which also really helps LLMs since they are as much dumb text search as they are vector embedding.
The problem is that virtually the entire new world and much of the old world was acquired by force and threats of force that has been legitimized over time. So yes, I think this is clearly extortion and any sale that takes would be coerced.
For sure in the future I'm sure the US will teach that it was a fair deal and nato was corrupt anyway but I hate to see the whitewashing of it going on already like it's a casual land purchase offer
Europe going forward is going to be treated the way the US treats and has always treated Latin American and African and Middle Eastern countries. That you see a conspiracy in further coercion of a non-consensual empire indicates how sheltered and "white identity" oriented you are.
Perhaps you're simply struggling with the concepts here: would it help you to understand things better to add that russia and the US ban the use of Signal by their militaries and intelligence services?
Did you detect an implication that can't be extrapolated from the text without metacontext and secondary unstated axioms, or is your mind totally blank and baffled at what these data points could indicate?
reply