231–240 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds horrible. We should focus on making good products that last a long time. What is the point of making something new and almost identical every 5 years?
Yeah exactly! Maybe that's why users should focus on protocols and not on Platforms. Like Matrix.org
I have a bad feeling about this. Discord essentially does one thing really well. I don't want to see it go down the way of so many chat platforms trying to be everything and becoming a bloated mess. Recently, they replaced the fun, gamery loading messages with something more "formal". Now it does it's one thing slightly less well. The first of many casualties, no doubt. It makes me despair of business models which re…
Problem is the tech world is changing very fast. If you're going to sit idle hoping to make the same amount of cash every year, you're going to disappear within 5-6 years. Not liking where Discord is headed either, just saying some change is necessary not only for growing, but for staying relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have different personas related to different parts of my life that absolutely should not mix Looks like the only one who support this is Telegram. Might be because they (supposedly) don't mine your data.
I am curious now can you explain more? As far as I know Telegram requires a unique phone number for every account on registration.
Telegram clients support multiple active sessions with multiple accounts, you can switch between them easily and receive notifications from all accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you don't have to host it I really wish you could though
A lot of the ease of using Discord comes from the fact that every server just works, and you can join using a link. If people could host their own servers I'd imagine you'd end up with poorly-hosted servers that would degrade the overall experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must know a lot of people who take themselves too seriously.
A lot of times when apps try to be cute I wish they would just STFU and do the thing I want them to
In my limited experience Discord seems almost identical to Slack but with a much worse UI. Combine that with the fact that belonging to more than one server quickly becomes overwhelming (again, largely due to crappy UX) I’m concerned about how many communities are utilising it. Can somebody that likes it explain why it seems to be doing so well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not specific to discord, but what's broken is that work is organized to maximize personal profit of shareholders (and the remuneration and other privileges of managers), not to benefit users/society. I'm not against people profiting from their activity, in the broad sense of the word (though i'm personally opposed to money as a tool/concept). But profit-driven social organization has lead to many avoidable disasters:…
What is the better alternative? I have not heard of a society that has succeeded to incentive people on a large scale without the possibility of profit. Note that the context of this conversation is someone blaming capitalism for Discord becoming bloated because Discord’s founders have a goal of increasing their wealth. It seems alternatives to Discord exist for users that do not wish for this bloat, but users do not…
Have society really taken on learned helplessness on a mass scale? In a sense that everyone has a defeatist attitude of "we can't think of any system better than current capitalism so why change?"
Or is it more probable that there are some vested interest in keeping the status quo?
Is nobody concerned about privacy? I don't like this: https://www.tosdr.org/en/service/discord
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about Discord specifically, but what is broken is that the people who have ultimate control of large public companies (in 90% of cases - founder controlled companies are a prominent exception) are the shareholders. And these are typically not domain experts, their main interest is in making money. So they generally see fit to appoint executives whose main objective is to make money and to remove those wh…
> but what is broken is that the people who have ultimate control of large public companies (in 90% of cases - founder controlled companies are a prominent exception) are the shareholders. And these are typically not domain experts, their main interest is in making money. So they generally see fit to appoint executives whose main objective is to make money and to remove those who care about anything else. What altern…
Worker representation on boards is one example. Imagine if the board of public companies was 50% shareholders and 50% workers.
> The most profitable public companies seem to invest quite heavily in long term investments and have long term planning. This does not seem to square with your statement.
The most profitable companies yes, but not necessarily the ones making the most money for their investors. Part of this pattern is that the companies typically end up dying a slow and painful death, meaning that they never get to be as big as the largest companies. But money in investing is made on change in value/profits, not on profits themselves.
I guess I would say that the pattern I have described doesn't describe the entire economy. There is more traditional long-term investing going on too. But it's there. And it's harmful.