I don't think WhatsApp Web is a ridiculous hack. Instead I think it's quite an ingenious hack to allow you to use a computer to send and receive messages without 1) dealing with the pesky message synchronisation issues that plague iMessage, and 2) having the server store all messages. And your phone only needs to be connected to the Internet, not necessarily on the same network. Regarding the use of QR code, I think it's a clever way to authenticate too; no password to memorise, just a long random auth token.
Have you even tried Telegram on the Web? It's clearly superior and yes, WhatsApp's solution feels like a nasty hack when compared to it. Also, didn't get that mention to iMessage.
This totally speaks to me but I imagine saying to my buddies at the club: "You should use Telegram. It's free, you don't need an account, and best of all there is even a command line client.". That'll convince them right away. ;-)
Your phone does not need to be on the same network!!!!
I have my phone in front of me right now at work and I remoting into my home computer(Chrome remote desktop) and using the web client.
Having colors for different classes of code fragment just helps to reduce the amount of processing of the code in the brain. Seems to me that this is a win, at least it is for me.
In daily life I use a very colorful scheme (darcula on steroids) and just thinking about monochrome makes my head hurt.
You can download/install jq [0]. as for links, it is just a simple text browser. It could be substituted by elinks or lynx (although they are not present on a default Mac OS X installation either afaik), or you can just use the handler to open it in the browser of your choice.
I had this idea a while back and made a puzzlegame for Android and iOs that does basically this.
The idea is to create puzzles on ANY subject that contain words relating to that subject.
- let user type, search wikipedia for articles starting with that text
- grab selected article, find out words in it that are links to other articles (they are probably related)
- generate a puzzle
I also do random placement, but I also add a score to the final puzzle, taking into account spread in vertical/horizontal/diagonal words. Then I just create as many random puzzles as I can in 4 seconds and take 'the best'.
> "In the end only one's own gene-survival matters."
Really? Speaking personally, if I could make a large lasting contribution to improve society, but had to give up my own gene-survival to do it, then I would do it. People value different things, there isn't one be-all and end-all.
If our ancestors had thought like that the human race would not exist as we know it. It's very much the exception to the rule to value 'societal progress' over one's own family.
Not really. We'd still exist, even with the same attitude. Sometimes increasing the size of the population is beneficial to society, but it's a different situation in today's world.
I understand why the idea of bringing life into the world is appealing, but let's not pretend that's the main reason for living.
Your genes programmed you to believe that your "own gene survival is of zero interest to [you] personally." They did that because they found that exhibiting that belief was a good way to get themselves into the next generation.
Some substantial number of people who go around thinking that they aren't just acting as machines to propagate their genes find that their independence from gene control just happens to lead them to have a nice large family because their unselfish spirits love their spouses and children.
And the genes giggle triumphantly at your independence.
This seems like an unfalsifiable set of statements. Anything someone can say to the contrary just gets wrapped up in "But your genes programmed yourself that way".
Hint: There's not a whole lot "Gene survival urges" can do about 2 pellets of appropriately placed titanium and some surgical knives.
> Your genes programmed you to believe that your "own gene survival is of zero interest to [you] personally." They did that because they found that exhibiting that belief was a good way to get themselves into the next generation.
This is a compeltely meaningless statement, with no basis in fact. Genes do not consciously 'trick' you.
It's also a logically problematic. How would my developing to experience no paternal instinct actually lead me to have children? Short of me being irresponsible during sexual encounters (which I'm not) it won't happen.
> Some substantial number of people who go around thinking that they aren't just acting as machines to propagate their genes...
I never claimed otherwise and a I actually agree with that.
However the urge to have sex is very different from the urge desire to have children. You might want to look into that.
> ...find that their independence from gene control just happens to lead them to have a nice large family because their unselfish spirits love their spouses and children.
Again, no basis in fact.
This is very patronising and condescending as well. You're claiming to know my own mind better than I know it myself which is the asbsolute height of arrogance. You're also indicating people are selfish if they don't have children, which is competely contradicts what you said above about people just being machiens for genetic propagation.
I'm not even sure what to say to this other than you sound like a horribly shallow and judgemental person with a high degree of cognitive dissonance.
You might want to accept that fact that there are millions and millions of people across the globe that consciously decide to never have childre, for a variety of reasons. It may also come as a surprise to you that these people do not suddenly break down and end up with large families because their genes 'tricked' them into it.
Honestly, I have an ~110Mb cable connection (From a fast CDN I can acheive downloads in excess of 13MB/sec) and new Google Maps is still a dumpster fire that is inferior to old Google Maps in every way I can imagine.
Ditto and I have a gigabit connection. Slooooow. I just profiled the maps start page and it transferred 2.5MB in 182 requests and took 2.56s to load. This compared to 544ms for the Google homepage. It's like their optimization team never got invited to Google Maps.
