A lot of decentralized projects focus on the philosophy, but most people just want something that works smoothly. Platforms like Blacksky probably grew not because of cutting-edge tech, but because they made it feel easy to use without overthinking.

And yet Threads pushed past that number in half the time.

Bluesky and Mastodon are still the fringe of human community.

Meta essentially forces every instagram user to install threads....so it's more forced growth than natural growth

No, they don't. They do heavily push suggested Threads posts in the IG feed, though.

That's because Blacksky and Threads address wildly different markets.

Blacksky's market is literally orders of magnitude smaller. That's quite a growth curve when adjusted for market size.

That's fine. The mainstream is a cesspool of shit and stupidity, and the rest of the world is welcome to drown in it.

Running every day for ten years is impressive enough on its own. What really stands out to me is how you turned the whole thing into a structured, data-driven project. The way you blended life and tech feels genuinely inspiring. It's not just about running, it's about how you choose to spend your time.

The biggest issue with Copilot might not be the model itself, but the naming strategy. One name is used for several completely different products, and users end up totally confused. You think you're using GitHub Copilot, but it's actually M365 Copilot, and you don't even get to choose the model. Microsoft really needs to make this clearer.

You probably are not a customer as a decision maker in a big traditional company/organization. MS is obfuscating on purpose so they can say in sales decks that if you buy this, you get all these copilots and your Fortune 1000 business is AI-proof. What they are left out is that not every copilot is equal.

This worked very well for IBM Watson.

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" is a quote your grandparents used.

What doesn't work anymore for IBM still certainly works for Oracle and the rest of the sales-driven tech giants.

That's a good point.

And us plebs working for the company are left to deal with the inferior tool.

Insert "No, We have copilot at home children" meme here.

For some reason I had also gotten the impression that Copilot was powered by OpenAI in some way. Perhaps the Microsoft OpenAI partnership gave me that impression.

I also wasn't aware that there where an OpenAI/Microsoft rivalry, I had the impression that Microsoft put a lot of money into OpenAI and that ChatGPT ran on Azure, or was at least available as an offering via Azure.

Copilot is powered by a Microsoft-hosted version of OpenAI's models. If you ask it, it says "I'm based on GPT-4, a large language model developed by OpenAI. Specifically, you're chatting with Microsoft Copilot, which integrates GPT-4 with additional tools and capabilities like web browsing, image understanding, and code execution to help with a wide range of tasks."

OpenAI's models are also available via Azure.

>Microsoft really needs to make this clearer.

LOL. We're talking about the company that used to slap a non-sensical .NET suffix on everything.

And they’ve renamed Office pretty much every year so I’m not even sure what it’s called any more, Microsoft Life or something.

It’s so strange that they keep renaming because Office (and office.com) is perfectly usable.

And now it slaps "xbox" on everything.

I used to think Basic Economy was just airlines making things uncomfortable on purpose. Then I realized it’s really about separating customers based on how much they’re willing to pay. They’re raising revenue without changing the base price. You see this more and more now. The default option keeps getting worse, not to cut costs but to make upgrades feel worth it. I’m not sure if people will just get used to it or eventually start pushing back.

We talk a lot about AI’s potential, but its energy footprint is often underestimated. As model sizes grow, the environmental impact of both training and inference may show up faster than expected. It's an issue worth more attention.

AI tools are great for speeding up small tasks, but when it comes to debugging, refactoring, or designing anything more complex, manual coding is still essential. Especially when things break, if you do not understand the underlying logic, you cannot really fix it properly.

AI is becoming a helpful assistant, but it is still far from replacing real engineering skill.

I’ve noticed my reading habits changing too. I used to read a lot of literary fiction in my twenties, but now I mostly go for nonfiction or short-form stuff. It’s not that I think fiction is less important, it just feels harder to make space for slow, quiet stories that don’t offer an immediate payoff.

Maybe it’s not just a cultural decline, but a deeper shift in how we deal with time, attention, and meaning.

I have noticed this too. I spent my childhood immersed in fantasy and dystopian fiction, but nowadays, all I do is read nonfiction. Granted, part of it is probably because I realised that reality is typically much stranger (and therefore often more interesting) than fiction.

Using AI to improve enforcement makes sense, but I do worry a bit when reporting turns into a way to make money. If people start watching each other for profit, it feels like we could slowly lose some of that everyday trust. I wonder if there’s a better balance between efficiency and a healthy community vibe.

I’ve honestly never known which sites use DNSSEC and which don’t. Browsers don’t warn you when it’s missing, and most people probably wouldn’t even know where to look.

It’s hard to care about something like that, even if it really does matter behind the scenes.

I think you're confusing DNSSEC with HTTPS. DNSSEC is how you go from an internet name to an IP address, so it happens before your browser starts talking to the website.

These days, I usually start with a basic LLM, layer in RAG for external knowledge, and build workflows to keep things stable and maintainable. Agents sound promising, but in practice, a clean RAG setup often delivers better results with far less complexity.