patrick.net

how do you find clients? theres your answer.

SunnyvaleCA says

Why don't more developers join small startups or create a startup with a good idea and hand the management off to someone else as they continue to work on the software.

I worked with an architect who did just that. The guy told me once the company starts getting bigger and introducing process, he tends to bail.

GNL says

Tell me, how cutting edge, really, is Twitter, Facebook and Instagram?

I can answer this.

A single person can develop the main interface to the site, and if you decentralize it, maybe two people are needed.

Monetization might be a problem, HOWEVER, I don't think most publishers are looking to monetize, they just want fame of some sort. Once they have a certain level of fame, THEN they want monetization.

The worth of these companies are directly tied to two things 1) how many eyes are on the site 2) how much the government dumps into them to create "the narrative".

I HIGHLY DOUBT there is as many users of Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube as is claimed. Once you create an account, you're there FOREVER as a "user", even if you create 20 accounts, and never log into them ever again. I use an account on Youtube that is tied to an email address I was locked out of 15 years ago. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors.

They are concerned with creating a false consensus, not a real one. This is why they don't care about driving users off, or censoring people who just go elsewhere. When has a video on Bitchute or Rumble been referenced in our "news" media?

I am curious as to a true consensus. People can be wrong of course, they can be "toxic" (and I mean LEGITIMATELY toxic), you can't escape propaganda bots, intelligence agencies infiltrate every group, so - how do you filter all those frauds out? I know it can be done, but it has to be so fucking simple, that people will make use of it. What if we could all see who had been ignored on this site and by whom, and WHY they were ignored. I don't think it's a legitimate reason to ignore a person because they are wrong (or you THINK they are wrong..), but it does make sense to ignore them if they are actively dishonest.

@"mostly reader" (https://patrick.net/user/mostly%20reader) I consider actively dishonest. He denied that the US overthrew Ukraine despite me explaining it, showing source material, and going through a lot of effort of explaining why I thought this. His response was simply to engage in ad-hominem, when I pressed him for how he developed his viewpoint, he would only show me sites that spoke exclusively Ukrainian and Russian (in video - so very difficult to translate that), and was demanding I learn another language to understand what he CLAIMED was his viewpoint. I think he's a spook, but no way to know. He never gave me any way to reevaluate my thinking, he just tried to intimidate me into accepting his claims. Maybe I'm wrong, but he didn't engage in any effort to try to convince me I was in error.

I don't ignore anybody, I prefer to do that manually. I have placed a few people on ignore temporarily, simply because they kept posting on subjects that is outside of my experience, and which I can't form any rational opinion on. I don't know or understand the conflict between Sikh's and Hindus for example and even if I did, I don't see my nation taking sides in this battle, so I'm entirely not involved with it, have no stake in it, and I cannot take sides because I'm far too ignorant about the situation.