I used it for about a year with a small team. It worked well for what it does, but the functionality is definitely stripped down and barebones compared to Slack. I don't remember any performance or reliability issues.
Hard disagree. We use both in my company. Google Chat is definitely better than Teams for actual collaboration: it's easier to track unread messages in "Home" (it's the "inbox"), and channels (called "spaces") are much better designed (they are conceptually closer to Slack's channels). Also, it's not crashing all the time. What's missing: the message editor doesn't support nested bulleted lists, we can't archive a space/channel.
Each article like this one is an opportunity to assess whether it's mainly written by an AI or not. After reading part of this one I mostly think not (except for the obvious AI generated image), but it would be amusing if it were. "I’ve been asked a few times about my approach to open-source in the past few weeks, so decided to write this article to structure my thoughts." Is this being told from the perspective of Claude or OpenAI? I assume across the millions of users this has been asked a few times in the past few weeks. If it's from the human perspective, perhaps while he was drafting it, the AI assistant asked him about his approach a few times so that it, and in this case each conversation counts as a separate character asking him for his thoughts about it. Either way it's easier to inflate the number of people asking the author's opinion. However, for this, I dug into the author's bio, and with almost 10k followers on X, it seems likely he did get asked this a bunch of times.
Having first hand experience with building multiple open source and open core dev infra companies, the advice in this article is spot on. If it is AI slop, it's still good advice.
I'd prefer comments focused on content vs. trying to Turing-test AI generated text.
What if his prompt was a dump of his thoughts and a request to condense them to a coherent article? I guarantee you wouldn't have seen that version of the article, and if you did you'd probably still be shitting on it.
There's no way to win (except to human wash the article, which ironically usually involves making it less coherent/clean), so why bother trying to please people like you?
What you’re describing — or perhaps what you believe you’re describing — isn’t really a defense of the article, it’s a defense of a hypothetical — and it’s not a hypothetical grounded in evidence, it’s a hypothetical grounded in assumption. It’s not “what if,” it’s “what I prefer to imagine.” It’s not an argument about quality, it’s an argument about perception — and those are not interchangeable, they’re fundamentally different categories of reasoning.
Because the premise itself quietly shifts the goalposts — it’s not “evaluate the article,” it’s “speculate about an unseen draft.” It’s not “address the criticism,” it’s “pre-invalidate criticism by inventing an alternate reality.” That move — subtle but significant — doesn’t clarify anything, it obscures everything. It’s not engagement, it’s reframing — and reframing is not the same thing as resolving.
You suggest that a raw dump of thoughts might have existed — that a chaotic precursor might have been transformed into something structured — but that observation, even if true, doesn’t actually address the core issue. It’s not about whether a messy draft once existed, it’s about whether the finished product stands on its own. It’s not about process, it’s about outcome. The existence of an earlier version — real or imagined — doesn’t immunize the final version from critique. Creation isn’t evaluation — and effort isn’t excellence.
And the guarantee you offer — that criticism would persist regardless — isn’t really a guarantee, it’s a projection. It’s not certainty, it’s conjecture. It’s not insight into others’ motives, it’s an assumption about others’ reactions. Predicting bad faith — without demonstrating it — isn’t analysis, it’s speculation wearing the costume of inevitability.
There’s also a quiet conflation happening — it’s not “people disliking something,” it’s “people being impossible to please.” Those are not the same claim. Disagreement isn’t hostility — and criticism isn’t persecution. Treating them as equivalent — collapsing evaluation into antagonism — transforms a conversation into a caricature. It’s not “no way to win,” it’s “no way to avoid disagreement,” which is a completely different and far less dramatic proposition.
The notion of “human washing,” too, carries an embedded assumption — that human intervention inherently degrades coherence. But that framing — again — is not a neutral observation, it’s a value judgment disguised as a technical claim. It’s not “less coherent,” it’s “differently structured.” It’s not “less clean,” it’s “less mechanically uniform.” Coherence isn’t synonymous with polish — and polish isn’t synonymous with quality. A text can be pristine yet hollow — and it can be uneven yet meaningful.
More importantly, the entire dilemma you outline rests on a binary that may not actually exist. It’s not “please critics or don’t bother,” it’s “accept that reception varies.” It’s not “win or lose,” it’s “communicate and be interpreted.” Framing discourse as a game with only defeat conditions transforms ordinary disagreement into existential futility — and that’s not realism, it’s dramatization.
Because audiences aren’t a monolith — and reactions aren’t predetermined. It’s not “people like you,” it’s “people with different criteria.” It’s not “shitting on,” it’s “responding negatively.” It’s not “impossible to win,” it’s “impossible to guarantee universal approval,” which has always been true of any expressive act in any medium at any time.
Underlying your comment is a deeper assumption — that criticism invalidates effort, that negative reception negates value, that disagreement implies malice. But those equivalences don’t hold. It’s not rejection, it’s evaluation. It’s not hostility, it’s interpretation. It’s not sabotage, it’s variance in judgment.
And variance — inconvenient, unavoidable, sometimes frustrating — is not a flaw in discourse, it’s the defining feature of it.
So the question “why bother trying” rests on a premise that may itself be misframed. It’s not about pleasing everyone, it’s about expressing something honestly. It’s not about eliminating criticism, it’s about tolerating its existence. It’s not about winning approval, it’s about accepting plurality.
Because communication — like writing, like reading, like interpretation itself — isn’t a system designed to produce unanimous outcomes. It’s not consensus manufacturing, it’s meaning negotiation — messy, imperfect, sometimes contentious, always subjective.
And that condition — not failure, not injustice, not impossibility — is simply the normal state of human exchange.
What model did you use to write that? I'd prompt it to be more succinct next time. I don't care about the AIisms but I don't have patience for a long argument when a short one would suffice.
The content is useful only if it's fact-checked. The author evidently did not even bother editing the article, so how is anyone supposed to know whether it's factual or it's conjured out of some numbers.
A lot of spy cameras have an IR light that will be visible if viewed through your phone camera, so turning out the lights and doing a quick phone camera sweep can help.
I'm guessing this won't apply to all cameras though.
Phone cameras typically have IR filters that filter out that light. You need to modify the camera (or have an exceptionally cheap one?) to not have it filtered.
The popular in Korea anti-spy cameras/reflecting optical devices that find even pinhole camera lens. Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQM298P6 But buy from somewhere other than Amazon. ;)
it needs to draw power, so the ultimate way is to look for anything generating radio waves. there a few inductive methods to "listen" to electrical pulses near by, but you have to sweep every part of the room, take apart every source of EM. e.g.: light fixtures drawing power while turned off. same with wall sockets.
I've been wanting something like this that isn't artifactory (I've ran it in previous companies, it's not a great experience), so I had been thinking of doing it myself, but never bothered. One idea I had is to write a proxy that essentially translates the various package manager endpoints into OCI registry, thus causing everything to be stored on any OCI backend. My thinking was this way you could in theory use any OCI backend (including ready available, battle-tested self-hosted applications), but this proxy would never need it's own state, thus making it (hopefully) easier to run.
Now that you've implemented, was there a reason you didn't go for such an approach so that you would worry about less as someone hosting something like this?
I have used oras, and that might be an interesting approach but not sure how it would work with search , version listing, dependenciton resolution, metadata quirere, permissions, and audit logs.
What redundancy are we talking about? AWS has proven to the world on multiple occasions that redundancy across geo locations is useless, because if us-east-1 is down, their whole cloud is done, causing a big chunk of the world to be down.
Half sarcasm of course, but it goes to show that the world is not going to fall apart in many cases when it comes to software. Sure, it's not ideal in lots of cases, but we'll survive without redundancy.
I've never understood the use-case of Adnauseam. This just, essentially, allows the adbroker (e.g. Google) to get more money from the business putting up the ad. Unless every single person uses it, it's not going to stop business from advertising, it just makes the likes of Google get more revenue.
>> This just, essentially, allows the adbroker (e.g. Google) to get more money from the business putting up the ad.
It lowers the effectiveness of internet advertising. When advertisers feel they're paying too much for the business the ads generate, they'll stop advertising in that way. That's probably the thinking anyway. A less generous stance would be: I hate advertisers so I'm gonna get back at them by making them pay more.
It would just cut the rates they'll pay to account for the erroneous clicks. I guess that might just be limited to defunding the sites popular with the really techy group of people that use Adnauseam and instead shift to niches with better effectiveness.
Assuming it actually works (which I'm not sure about), it increases the cost on the business putting up the ad (presumably targeting you). It acts as a small punishment to the business buying the ads I guess.
>Assuming it actually works (which I'm not sure about),
Which it probably doesn't, given that it uses XHRs to "click" on ads, which is super detectable, and given the proliferation of ad fraud I'd assume all networks already filter out.
The other assumption here is that ad networks want to filter out all clicks but the most legitimate.
I don't think that's a very lucid assessment of how advertisers operate on the Internet. We all agree that they could take these steps. If AdNauseam doesn't look like outright fraud in the logs (which they don't if it's all distinct IPs and browsers), I don't think they want to cut it out from their revenue and viewer analytics.
it's actually the opposite, google adsense and every major ad-network will ban you or put a hold on your account if they think the ad impressions or clicks are automated, so this is a good way to get someone blocked from the ad-network
Hard to say without knowing what your needs are. What’s wrong with using macOS’ native tools? They work great not only for capturing but for annotation. What exactly are you looking for?
The app has a constant item on the bar at the bottom. Quitting that quits the whole application, I couldn't find a setting to change this behaviour. But I could live with that if it wasn't for it somehow switching desktops when you start taking a screenshot. It switches desktop, goes back to the main one, then starts the set up. Of course that also means it takes a couple of seconds before the screenshot gets taken.
I'm unsure what Flameshot on macOS has to do with Flameshot Linux? I used to use Flameshot on Linux, and it works great, though I've always found the built-in screenshot software for Linux good enough. The application doesn't work as smoothly on macOS and I wouldn't need a tool for screenshots if the built-in tooling was any good. It's like it was designed by someone who had created a screenshot for the first time in their life.
what do you use Flameshot for on macOS? if you want to edit stuff, you can set the screenshot tool to open the screenshot in Preview.app where you can perform basic editing on it (cmd+shift+5 and then click Options and choose "Preview" in "Save to")
Not to whataboutism this, but I've barely heard pro-Palestinian crowd talk about the stuff Syria did to the Druze, the Alawites, and now to the Kurds.
Multiple of my friends on Instagram still post daily about the atrocities in Gaza, but haven't posted anything about the atrocities in Aleppo or Kobane. Nor did they post anything when the STG was massacring the Alawites or the Druze last year.
So I find it hard to believe that it's about the sanctions or whatnot.
You are right, I also see less protests and difference in general, when it comes to other issues. I want to be transparent here and share my views (as an immigrant and living in the West, coming from other part of the world)
I personally protested for Sudan, Syria and Venezuela. Of course you might say I am just giving you excuses, but on a personal level I feel different for each one of them when protesting, my expectations also different:
* Sudan - IMO it was funded by UAE, our gov. can sanction them, but they have excuse: "Do you have proof???"
* Syria - Their excuse: "What are you talkin about, we don't cooperate with ex-Al-Qaeda, what can we do there?"
* Venezuela - "Dude, we are doing it, just shut the f... up and watch how awesome we are in conducting these operations"
* Gaza - I think initially we were naive thinking our government will help, but in reality it turned out it was same government, so it resembles more to Venezuela case rather than other cases.
I don't disagree. But still, it's normal to have a higher standard for Israel, a democracy; to assume protest will be more effective at swaying them. Should we not hold Israel to an higher standard?
reply