If I’m a company and want to bring something to production quickly, what should i choose:

1. A relatively new tool that has seen barely any production use and thus could have a bunch of unanticipated problems. Also nobody uses it so every new engineer you bring onto the project has to learn something entirely new before they can start really contributing. You also have no idea how long it will be supported by its developers into the long term future.

2. A battle hardened, production tested tool that has a huge community, has been around for a long time, and that a lot more developers already know how to use.

Sure #2 might be slower by a few fractions of a second, but if I’m in charge of the business i know which option I’m going to choose 100% of the time.

Same thing happens to me if I were to open each of those apps as chrome tabs.

The apps you listed provide a web version also. Adding choice to the customer experience is a good thing!

Because many users often enjoy using a dedicated application than a website. Plus it gives developers access to even more customization than browsers normally provide.

If they customers didn’t like using it, companies wouldn’t keep making these apps.

Personally, I’m a techie guy but I get exhausted with the number of tabs i have open at any time. I don’t need to have more dedicated to just slack, Spotify, discord etc

Genuine question, why does it matter? Why shouldn’t a project choose a production ready method of creating cross platform compatible code to avoid duplication of efforts and cost?

I’ve certainly seen and heard of Google modifying results or puting punishments on users because they broach topics that violate their terms of service.

I will absolutely agree that the rules of their ToS are heavily determined by the desires of advertisers and written laws.

But just because they may restrict the content based off of advertiser’s wishes or because they are legally required to do so doesn’t mean that Google is in bed with the government and willing to do anything to prop up the government’s power so they can keep making money from them.

That’s a really big and important jump you can’t just hand wave away just because a company as large as Google works with the government on some things. That’s just conspiracy theory and detracts from the very real, evidence based criticisms we can and should be focusing on.

In order to make a claim like that you need two different evidences: one showing that they did remove content critical of the US and one showing that they removed it because they intended to use the removal to make more money

Just because they’ve done some things wrong doesn’t mean they have done everything that’s wrong. I would rather base my criticism on companies (or people or ideas) on true facts.

That means sometimes there’s an uncomfortable situation where an otherwise evil organization isn’t always evil in every situation, and that is ok.

It’s the obvious followup to your statement “shoplifting is happening because of capitalism. Period.” You were very clear and I think my question is very clear.

Would Coles paying their staff more prevent non employees from stealing?

Are you suggesting that nobody ever stole anything from a store in a socialist/communist country?

But the rich are the ones buying a lot of the art! Who will pay the artists if you eat the people with the money?

That’s definitely an ideal benefit of decentralization, but as the OP correctly pointed out, the reality often works out differently than the ideal.

Thank you for the tip!

But what percentage of their userbase wants to use them for domains. I’m sure it was profitable, but I doubt they were making as much on that as they could elsewhere. A service making them $50 million a year might not be enough for them to decide to continue with it when they are regularly dealing with products that make hundreds of millions or even billions from. It might just not be worth the effort.

they took what was almost certainly a profitable service and abandoned it

They oftentimes make a decision like this when their internal math tells them that the resources they put into domains could make them more money if they were put in another product. If you consider the opportunity cost, it could make sense to Google to make a change like this.

From our perspective, it’s crazy, but it’s easy to forget the huge scale of the money they are dealing with.

services like Gmail and Maps which can’t be profitable

They aren’t profitable, neither is Photos, but they are considered essential applications that keep users bought into the google ecosystem and are necessary for android to remain competitive.

You are absolutely right with your description. One thing to note since OP was looking for the distinction: most mods are power users. It’s usually the most active and enthusiastic users who have the desire to become a moderator.

No i think they do get it, it’s exactly like how subreddits work, if you don’t like how /r/technology works, you can always create a new tech based subreddit moderated anyway you like. The issue isnt that there are multiple communities.

The problem, as always, is discoverability of all of these disjointed communities. I’m still new to Lemmy, but it seems like you have to rely on an external 3rd party tool like https://browse.feddit.de/ to find any of them.