As entrepreneurs, there's no business that’d be more lucrative than pulling off a new social network. But despite the constant cries for something like this on Twitter, we think it's a classic case of worse is better. You couldn't invent Figma before Sketch and Illustrator nailed the single-player vector-based experience. So it is with reading software. Or so our theory goes.

So, just like your web 1, 2, 3… you have payments 1, 2, 3. Internet banking was the web 1.0 version. Then, in web 2.0, fintechs came offering instant payments and a great user experience. In the 3.0 version, payment confirmation and settlements happen simultaneously, and that becomes the base for a lot of innovation. For example, companies are experimenting with things like streaming payments. Typically, we get paid monthly. But in the decentralised finance/payments world, money is flowing to you every minute or every second.

Jack Schaller in Philadelphia:I would like to have better “intelligence” built into our email client engines to intuitively sort the fire hose of mail we all receive into bins for processing, storing, referencing, etc.

Class 1 problems arise early and they are easy to imagine. Usually market forces will solve them. You could say, most Class 1 problems are solved along the way as they rush to become Class 2 problems. Class 2 problems are much harder to solve because they require more than just the invisible hand of the market to overcome them.

More broadly, breaking up a formerly integrated system — commoditizing and modularizing it — destroys incumbent value while simultaneously allowing a new entrant to integrate a different part of the value chain and thus capture new value.

I’d go further: I think we as a society are in a far stronger place when it comes to knowing the truth than we have ever been previously, and that is thanks to the Internet…the New York Times doesn’t have the truth, but then again, neither do I, and neither does Amazon.

We believe privacy will be an essential characteristic of blockchains, even though most blockchains like Ethereum and Bitcoin are completely transparent today. Projects like Aleo, IronFish, and Aztec solve application-level privacy, but before Nym, network-level blockchain privacy had been an unsolved conundrum. By enabling private blockchains, Nym will open a new design space for builders to create previously impossible private web3 applications. Nym is a new generation of global privacy that, like Tor, uses relay nodes to provide privacy. Their aim is to be able to scale the network to serve as a privacy backbone for the entire internet and make it more efficient by rewarding the nodes that run it.

And then there’s the inconvenient truth about the bandwidth problem of both computers and human resources. Blockchain solutions are vastly more expensive to maintain than centralized solutions, and centralization always wins purely from its ability to physically serve data over a network to customers more efficiently. For this hypothetical proposed decentralized Facebook there are several inescapable logistic questions. Who will pay for the global data centers to serve content? Whose lawyers will respond to the DMCA requests? Who is going to ban the Nazi accounts? Who will issue deletes on CSAM content? Who will reset grandma’s password when she forgets? Running a global business on this scale requires an inescapable amount of centralization just by the brute fact of having to exist and interact with the rest of the civilization. If you introduce centralized data centres and processes to handle all of the messy human interactions, well then congratulations you’ve just recreated Facebook by another name.

Blogging encourages interjections into conversations, and it thrives off of familiarity. Social media encourages content that can travel all on its own. Alyssa Rosenberg put it well at the Washington Post. "I no longer write with the expectation that you all are going to read every post and pick up on every twist and turn in my thinking. Instead, each piece feels like it has to stand alone, with a thesis, supporting paragraphs and a clear conclusion."

Tech companies make up most of my portfolio. It’s hard to imagine a world in which those companies aren’t much bigger and more dominant in a decade then they are today. Are newspapers going to win back our attention from Facebook and Twitter? Is the record industry going to suddenly get its swag back and challenge Spotify? Are you planning on shopping in a mall any time soon? No chance. Because we’re not going back to the old way of doing things, it’s hard to imagine what could topple today’s biggest tech companies. But that doesn’t mean they’re disruption-proof, just that it’s hard to imagine who will disrupt them. Disrupters are never re-disrupted by the companies they disrupted in the first place, and anyone who has tried to directly compete, on their terms, has failed. But time marches forward. New disrupters enter the fray. Things that look like a toy become the next big thing. So what could disrupt the internet giants? Web3.

I spend a huge amount of time in front of a computer/laptop. I’d like to think that most of that time is reasonably productive, i.e.: I’m getting stuff done (as opposed to simply browsing Facebook/Reddit/Youtube etc). I feel it’s really important, therefore, for me to attempt to maximise the efficiency of the process. I don’t mean in the sense of “ensure that I don’t waste time on Facebook”, but more the sense of “I know what small action I want to accomplish at this moment, and I’d like for my computer to obey me as fast as possible

I noticed that being rich in today’s world is not only about money. Being rich could be expressed in 3 ways of freedom: Financial independency: got enough money to buy whatever you want Location independency: go wherever you want Time independency: not bound to activities you must do at a specific time

Not enough time, motivation struggles, e.g. You have things you must do, and things you want to do. The things you must do will always come first, and the things you want to do comes second. It can happen that you’ll get demotivated. You do the “must do” first, and the “want to” second. The hurdle feels big, and when you’re done with the “must do”, you feel like you deserve relaxation. You lack motivation of your “want to do” things. You start doing other less important things. You get lost overthinking, watching television, gaming, or other distractions.

Sign up for a Stratechery account, then add the Passport plan; this will be the best place to stay abreast of Passport development, including my hope to release an open-source project to ensure that every creator has the same option for total independence that I have now achieved. 5 Alan Kay famously said, “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware”; my variation is that creators who are really serious about building a career on the Internet should own their own software. I can now speak from experience when I say it’s one of the best feelings in the world.

This is the logo he then designs.

This is why creativity benefits from diverse interests.

before talking about the limitations of RSS

A “content creator” creates original content.A content curator, though, curates content that’s already out there in the domain, organizes it, shoots it through their unique perspective, and then publishes it to build an audience.

When someone says they are changing the algorithm of a news feed or search engine page it's never to benefit the reader, it's always to benefit the advertiser. It's a lazy way of fitting the advertiser to the feed rather than letting the user decide what they want, and then fitting the advertiser to the users' preferences.

This article is restricted to token holders.

If you've worked with scientists, as I have for the last decade, it's obvious that many creators are motivated by things other than money. Why else would people work tirelessly, constantly at risk of losing the financial support they need to survive, and with little hope for fame or fortune. They're motivated by cultural impact, and money just helps them buy more freedom to pursue it.

Curators deposit GRT to subgraph bonding curves and earn a portion of query fees + curation rewards.

Design pays in spades. Calendar apps were "just fine" back then. When a product is "just fine”, not anything special but "just fine", there exists an opportunity. Think of all the "just fine" products you use and mark those down as potential opportunities

So, when it looked like AI was going to replace human curation, it has led to its resurgence. And so, human curation is gaining terrain once again.

It is better to deliver some improvement over time than no improvement for a long time, and then a big reveal.

hen projects are de-risked, we start building the desired product directly in phases. No shortcuts on design quality. No accumulation of technical debt to “get something out”.

Your development approach should change based on how ambiguous the problem and ideal solution are.

If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse

So, no matter who we are building for, we try to de-risk investments into projects by learning more about the problems before we invest time in solutions.

I was once reading an article about what a futurist at Google eats for breakfast every morning to live longer. The article added up that his diet of food and pills cost him $1 million per year. My morning ain’t that long, and I ain’t got that much money.

“People are building really interesting – but mostly experimental – tools. These are being built mostly by amateurs who do not understand how actual finance works,”

Due to licensing agreements certain parts of the apps including access to the network's live simulcast and most episodes of their shows require the viewer to use their subscription-television provider or OTT-platform username and password to authenticate their right to access such content.

The more options we are given trying to foresee the future, the more we are being held back to just try figuring it out on our own. There is a wonderful term describing this — analysis paralysis

Sometimes there was a lot of traffic, sometimes there was nothing. Sometimes there was a car crash, sometimes all was smooth. Sometimes I saw a beautiful girl drive by, sometimes a road rage gorilla messed things up.

I believe that setting goals and defining milestones is the key to make a vision become reality. They are required for us to be able to evaluate and measure progress along the way, making the whole journey actionable. Without setting goals along the way, a vision will always only stay a dream. Even with setting goals, a lot of uncertainty, cluelessness, and even doubt might prevail. However, I think defining goals for ourselves — and especially ones that seem a bit out of reach — enables us to be open-minded for opportunities, which will help us achieve them. If we don’t consciously put them on our radar, we simply might not be able to recognize them when they show up.

“My hope is that people will explore the limits of mind-wandering a bit more and try to mind-wander in a way that is bigger, more fantastical, more personally meaningful, and further into the future,” she says. “If people just really allowed themselves to playfully use this tool, they might be able to focus on creative solutions to big problems.”

“Just having more control over when mind-wandering happens and the kind of thoughts that you have would be very useful,” she says.

The author recommends in his book The Worry Trick to consider setting up a daily worry workout. It consists of setting up an appointment for yourself every day to fully focus on worrying. Take 10 minutes during your day, at a time when you can be for yourself, and go sit or stand in front of a mirror and speak your worries out loud. You can even prepare them in a notebook and read them out loud. During those 10 minutes, you don’t need to find a way to solve your worries or do anything else about them. Simply confront yourself with them and listen. I realized that this works a lot like saying out loud the same word over and over again. “Noodle. Noodle. Noodle. Noooodle. Noodle.” After a while, every word sounds ridiculous this way and the same thing applies to your worries.

Resource constrained organizations will almost always choose to invest their resources to get MORE resources, not protect against the chance that something bad will happen.This is a good point but it points to something some might not like. Resource constrained warehouses might on skimp on covering the risk of fire, resource constrained restaurants might skimp on sanitation, Resource constrained power companies (PG&E) might skimp on line maintenance and let whole towns burn to the ground (Paradise, 80+ people, Berry Creek 30+ etc) and so-forth (up to every company being too "resource constrained" to pay to stop global warming). In cases of this sort, you have companies risking both their capital and the life and limb of average people.We really have companies following this resource constrained logic and horrible things have and are happening. Economists describe this dynamic in terms of "externalities" and letting it run rampant pretty literally has in world on fire (and drowned under water, etc).