Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

nerology.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#181

Post by kaba0 »

FredPret wrote: post #172
kaba0 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> first of all This is his only patent. > Second, why are you willing to believe that good decisions can be made by "the experts", but if it's a rich, brash person you don't like, they can't possibly be "an expert"? This is not an american movie where the boss can change the tide of the whole company by just being so damn good. Reality is also not about CEOs bullshitting why are they so productive with their yoga-10m…

It's like you're making my points for me. - Have you interviewed Elon? You have great insight into his "actual" capabilities, as well as his "actual engineering knowledge and experience", not to mention his sleep schedule. - Do you think there's no value in technical leadership? - Why do you think progress can be made by many correct decisions at the detailed level made by many engineers, but not by a few correct dec…

> Do you think there's no value in technical leadership

There is. But people wash it together with technical expertise, which is very different. And I’m not convinced of any of these in case of elon. Just look at bullshit like the hyperloop - a kid can realize have utterly bullshit that “idea” is.

> Has it occurred to you that he did not file a patent application for every single thing he did?

Yeah, that’s definitely what his personality would dictate.. narcissistic people would definitely not market themselves that way. Only through literally buying the “founder” title of a company that wasn’t even started by him.

Now you claim that he had a directing influence on almost every aspect - may I ask you where you get this information from?

I think his smallest problem is just being a conman selling this self-made billionaire image, while not being particularly bright in the first place. The real problem is his push for right wing propaganda (presumably for lower taxes) on twitter, but even previously, or licking putin’s ass, etc. These are another kind of moral failing, on which I can happily judge him on.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#182

Post by Gigachad »

indianets wrote: post #50
ak_111 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are some 3 letter domain available on most TLD including .ai, I wonder why these haven't been taken up yet?

Because of exorbitant price set by the registry. After the apps boom, domain name has lost half of it’s value. And, rest was messed up by the new TLDs. I strongly believe if there was original gTLDs and ccTLDs, internet would be a better place.

This sounds like a good thing though. The high price makes squatting unviable so domains are left unregistered and available for someone who will actually use them.

All the new TLDs removed scarcity from the system which didn’t provide any value.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#183

Post by Gigachad »

schwartzworld wrote: post #168
geraldhh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

new-age tld's don't count

I have a .world tld, and it's not unusual for email inputs to wrongly mis-validate my perfectly valid email.

Seems like these issues come from the tlds longer than 3 chars.

I have a .red and a .me and never had an email field fail to validate.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#184

Post by nucleative »

kristopolous wrote: post #8
henpa wrote: post #3

I remember around 1999 when I used to work for a big ISP and I ran a simple perl script that would "nslookup" all combination of 3 letters domains. It generated a huge list of available domains, but none that called my attention because all the good ones (not just random letters) seemed to be already registered. I would never thought that all those random 3 letter domains would sell for so much money many years later…

Being an obdurate domain squatter would have been a successful strategy. All the things I thought would have been too stupid to work seems to have been very profitable

>All the things I thought would have been too stupid to work seems to have been very profitable

Isn't that the truth. The amount of stupid ideas that have turned out to be wildly successful.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#185

Post by mcv »

halJordan wrote: post #170
mcv wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised to see so many people and newspapers humouring Musk and obeying his name change when many pages on twitter.com still call it twitter. It's still Twitter. There's no need to call it X unless you want to want to do free advertising for Musk's name change.

It's simple professionalism. X is its name. Quite disheartening to constantly see the pull towards unprofessionalism just because the target is an other. Your own integrity should be pulling you to represent yourself correctly. It should have nothing to do with your external feelings towards the thing. And especially have nothing to do with your desire to hurt something.

Maybe the company is called X now, but the product is still at twitter.com, and calls itself that on many of its pages. There's nothing unprofessional about sticking to the name the product identifies itself by, and I think that would be a lot more professional for a news organisation than leading the way for a name change. That's not their job.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#186

Post by antifa »

FredPret wrote: post #119
kaba0 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed his biggest mismanagement, but it’s a serious competition. At least it broke the image of ‘CEOs must be intelligent’, that was wide spread in certain circles.

You don't think he's smart? Maybe he did it for the lol's, or to own his political opponents, or maybe it was just a mistake he locked himself into. All of which sound just like him. Rockets don't fly and electric cars don't drive if they aren't built right, which puts a floor on the IQ of the man who is that involved and hands-on with it. Being early in a major startup is a big deal, never mind a whole string of the…

> brings out an crowd who is enraged

can't think of a less fanboyish way to describe mild disagreement by 3 random commenters.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#188

Post by type0 »

7ewis wrote: post #71
sublinear wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> X.com is pretty stupid as well, you can't meaningfully use it as a brand. Just "x" alone isn't really the brand. It's more like "x.com" is the canonical name. From that perspective, "x" or "x.com" is about as good as brand recognition can get. It's simple and perfectly descriptive of an "everything app" and payment processing business.

I personally like brand names that _look_ like they could be words, but aren't like Spotify, Twitter, Monzo, Reddit, Google etc. Believe they need to be short and easy to Google even if you don't know how to spell them (not saying the above brand names are perfect). Find it annoying hearing Xero having to be spelt out on the radio to stop people going to zero.com. Not particularly a fan of combining two English words…

> when companies try to own a common word like Apple.

I wish there was a competitor called Banana, powered by minions

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#189

Post by AaronNewcomer »

I worked for mDesign for and we owned m.design for a while. We used it for our corporate email addresses (aaron@m.design for example) but the majority of non-tech employees and vendors just couldn’t get used to it and tried things like aaron@m.design.com or etc so it got scrapped.

Re: X.com is Twitter, but what are [a-z].com?

#190

Post by 1123581321 »

kristopolous wrote: post #8
henpa wrote: post #3

I remember around 1999 when I used to work for a big ISP and I ran a simple perl script that would "nslookup" all combination of 3 letters domains. It generated a huge list of available domains, but none that called my attention because all the good ones (not just random letters) seemed to be already registered. I would never thought that all those random 3 letter domains would sell for so much money many years later…

Being an obdurate domain squatter would have been a successful strategy. All the things I thought would have been too stupid to work seems to have been very profitable

If it's any consolation, it was only profitable because not enough people thought to squat on them so enough of them were turned into sites that made the web interesting enough to become massively popular. I tell myself such things, anyway. :)
Post reply on HN