We are on the pre-enshittification phase.

Haven't they built like, 5 different versions of chat at this point?

> theoretically under control of humans who have no idea what they are doing

Well those humans are about to receive some scolding, mate.

There's many things that are completely legal but could be done to the bot owner in retaliation. Especially if he continues to not apologize.

Did you at least apologize?

Why would I want to pay to be depressed/afraid/anxious? I can already do that very well on my own.

LOL, yes! I often think of my "information diet" and the news just feels like pure junk food. I can go to my public library (or a few places on the internet) and stuff my head with healthy information.

Nicely put, I hope you have very potent solar lamps at home

Different people and different work environments have different rules.'

I view my email once per week. If you need an immediate answer from me, I expect you to send me a slack/chat/pagerduty warning, even one that says "I sent you an email, I need answer by tomorrow".

If you communicate your expectation visibly, then this works. Otherwise not so much.

Even if they communicate visibly it doesn't always work. I don't use slack / pagerduty (not even sure what that is) and I'm not going to install or set up an account on some random proprietary service just to meet the demands of one email recipient. It might be fine in certain contexts (e.g. team members or friends/family who all use the same communication apps) but it breaks down when you're communicating with arbitrary members of the public.

Those are work tools. If you work for a company that uses them, you ought to have them installed on your work machine. This is not unreasonable.

If your friends are using random apps, screw them. They'll find a way to get a hold of you if they care enough. Or you'll eventually figure out what the majority are using and cave.

> If you work for a company that uses them, you ought to have them installed on your work machine. This is not unreasonable.

I covered that with "It might be fine in certain contexts (e.g. team members..." and "it breaks down when you're communicating with arbitrary members of the public". A lot of the comments in this thread seem to be assuming that the only communications that ever take place are intra-company. For many people that isn't true at all. For me the vast majority of work-related communications are to clients and third parties. I can't just say "screw them" or "they'll find a way to get hold of me if they care enough" or tell them to use slack to inform me that they've emailed me. I have to live in the real world.

Exactly. But it also works the other way. If you expect people to read your emails within 24 hours, make it very clear that that's a business need. Otherwise some of them will not.

Right-ism is the same, without the good intentions or ideas.

"The number of x" is not "natural".

This is caveman logic and I support it.

Why? The number of ways to shuffle 5 cards is a relevant thing to talk about, and is a perfectly fine number we use all the time.

What about 6 cards? 7 cards? At what point does it become "not natural"?

Not op, but the number of cards doesn't matter. Only one shuffle can exist at a time, the "number of shuffles" is not a number of natural objects but rather a cardinality of a set. And as we know sets and cardinalities open the gates of hell.

This doesn't mean it's not a "relevant thing to talk about". It just means that these mathematical constructs while useful don't maintain a direct connection to reality, kind of like complex numbers.

> Only one shuffle can exist at a time, the "number of shuffles" is not a number of natural objects but rather a cardinality of a set.

I really don't understand what this means in practice. If there are exactly 50 rocks in front of me right now, I can't talk about 51? It doesn't maintain a direct connection to reality to talk about what would happen if I threw another rock on the pile? Or if that's connected cause another rock exists, what about if I have exactly 20 chickens, and I want to talk about what would happen when another is born? Is this "connected to reality" and "a number of natural objects"? Or "the cardinality of a set" instead?