Hotmail is a good example too. I remember it being pretty ubiquitous, at least for the 'personal email' crowd, and it seemed implausible that people would give up on what was often their main email 'location' for another offering without being able to transfer their often important and personal stuff. then gmail came along.
The internet and the surrounding context changed so fast that it made little sense to cling to old email addresses made in the old context. Gmail represented the 'new internet' and old patterns became obsolete (less subversive, more mainstream/corporate). When there's a seismic shift in usage patterns that's when all bets are off regarding where everyone lands. Being the first mover means little here. If the way people interacted with AI underwent a massive shift, OpenAI would likely get left behind. The only safe bet is to invent your own killer.
Younger people might not realize or remember this, but when GMail came out it was HUGE. Like, I remember it was invite-only for a while and getting an invite was a really big deal. In retrospect that was some genius marketing by them (also just a way better product, at the time)
Also switching email was a lot easier back then. Nowadays if you're using gmail as an auth provider it's very hard to completely abandon an inbox without a lot of friction. Back then all your logins were separate anyway.
Interesting point. I guess people liked the convenience of unlimited storage even more than they liked the convenience of keeping the same email address. In a way they traded one convenience for another.
I don't remember that detail, but I do remember most people not treating their inbox as an archive at the time. So there was less friction to switch to gmail, and more reason to do so due to the "real time" ticking storage amount of gmail, which then became an archive (again for most people).
> I do remember most people not treating their inbox as an archive at the time.
Indeed. For me, the step was gmail. With its humongous 1GB of storage, that was the moment when I stopped having to delete stuff to save space. It’s funny because a lot of people I know who were already older at that point kept the habit of deleting emails, even today.
Do the big updates to Elixir's type system help at all? afaik the most recent update added a huge amount of coverage that should extend to older code automatically.
I don't want to go into details of my work project too much, but the fundamental issue is that ElixirLS only supports 1.12+ (at least last time I checked).
> JOSE: Yeah, so what happened is that it was the old concurrency story in which the Clojure audience is going to be really, really familiar. I’ve learned a lot also from Clojure because, at the time I was thinking about Elixir, Clojure was already around. I like to say it’s one of the top three influences in Elixir, but anyway it tells this whole story about concurrency, right?
I work with elixir daily and I would concur. elixir's semantics line up nearly 1:1 with the clojure code I used to write a few years ago. Its basically if you replaced the lisp brackets with ruby like syntax. The end result is a language that is much easier to read and write on the daily with the disadvantage of making macros more difficult. I would argue that it should be difficult since you should avoid using it until absolutely necessary. Lisps on the other hand, practically beg you to use macros as the entire language is optimized for their use.
wouldn't that still add a lot of value, where the person in the loop (sadly, usually) becomes little more than the verifier, but can process a lot more work?
Anecdotally what I'm hearing is that this is pretty much how LLMs are helping programmers get more done, including the work being less enjoyable because it involves more verification and rubber-stamping.
For the business owner, it doesn't matter that the nature of the work has changed, as long as that one person can get more work done. Even worse, the business owner probably doesn't care as much about the quality of the resulting work, as long as it works.
I'm reminded of how much of my work has involved implementing solutions that took less careful thought, where even when I outlined the drawbacks, the owner wanted it done the quick way. And if the problems arose, often quite a bit later, it was as if they hadn't made that initial decision in the first place.
For my personal tinkering, I've all but defaulted to the LLMs returning suggested actions at logical points in the workflow, leaving me to confirm or cancel whatever it came up with. this definitely still makes the process faster, just not as magically automatic.
Also don't forget the 'memory' feature. As LLM providers get better at tailoring the LLM to the user, and probably obfuscating the details on how this user-specific memory works, it will be harder to switch to another provider.
