Readit NewsPeople that gives money to artists are the ones going to concerts and buying music directly to artists. Spotify gives cents to artists, incetivizing awful behaviour (AI music, aggressive marketing, low effort art...).
Read the above as a critique to your strong opinion and not an opinion of mine.
My opinion is that toasts are great for notifications that can be reviewed/checked later, like chat notifications or finished background tasks.
What should be avoided, just for the same reason as modals/dialogs, is an overuse, causing fatigue.
I was less than 18, using one of those little cars that reaches at most 50 Km/h. I slammed the break and manage to stop maybe 2 cm from the kitty, which managed to continue out of the street alive.
The scooter behind me came close to me and complained that I almost killed them by slamming the breaks. To this day, I still don't know if that was the right call. That guy could have been a dad and I could have killed a father. Still I couldn't think of killing a cat either.
If you can't take constructive criticism or even respond to opinions you disagree, then it is better to not respond at all, because it is bad PR.
I understand that maintaining a project like this is hard, that you need to be compensated and that open source corporate usage tends to be disgraceful. But that's not what they are telling you. They are just shating their opinion, which is part of your potential customer opinions.
Share the rationale behind paywalling common features. Give us, if you have to respond, why you hide the pro features off the homepage, etc. Instead of this kind of childish reaction that adds nothing
Most of us have some decision at companies, which are your real customers, and criticism like I've seen you respond boldly and badly, is the criticism I think you should review and take into account.
Personally, I like everything of the pro, except the features that you decided to exclude. Doesn't seem pro features, but features you ramdomly decided not to open source them, and that could be ok. But instead of doing it like this, maybe put a restrictive license so that companies with more than 5 people have to pay.
But I think you should focus on premium/pro features that are really a plus, like your debugger, the bundler, etc. And find features that aren't common and give a plus.
And it is an opinion which you may disagree with, but if you respond to me, don't do it like that, because to me, it is not professional and I'll tend to avoid doing business with people that respond like that
The situation is a bit irregular, as the streaming providers set up a new website for each game, and the legal system isn't fast-moving enough to issue a court order banning a website within the 90 minutes of a football game. Instead La Liga got a 'dynamic blocking injunction' so they tell ISPs what to block, and ISPs have to block it.
Cloudflare is not ignoring LaLiga and they are open to collaborate, but LaLiga refuses to do so, and are battling legally over it.
Could you please label your post *sponsored content*!
> You want me to pay to search the internet?
Yes. Or you pay and get privacy and good results or you don't pay and they decide which results are better for their profits. That's not how it should work. Companies should build good software so that users use them, not because they have the monopoly and can do dark patterns that result in good profits for them at the expense of the user privacy. Google is not a good software company anymore, their products are abandoned and UX is in extreme decadence in favour of AI.
On the other hand, Kagi uses AI to provide good results and give the best UX to its users. You see? The other way around.
Does planting trees really help cool the planet?
Forests offset warming more than thought, but not enough
The technology has been out for a while now and I don't think I ever read anything good coming out from it.
Why do people still bother?
The basis? It is useful to overcome censorship, inflation and money transfers without relying on third parties (or relying on burocratic, traditionally greedy and ancient parties). It has some uses as a ledger, but this has not come that useful. Or, in my opinion, useful projects are overlooked and only greedyness is what drives the space.
Your sentiment is not wrong, but I see it as a reflection of human currency interaction. If I say "I don't think I ever heard anything good coming out of cash" could be true. Why would we hear something good about something that only its bad uses are news and worth mentioning. Same happens with crypto. I know it is a bit of a mental stretch to use this argument and it isn't 1:1, but cash is being used illegaly as well.
I see a trend that all privacy focused projects have this bad press always: - Cryptocoins (used only by scams) - GrapheneOS/privacy focused oses (used by fugitives and crimibals) - Tor (Used for dark web)
and while that's true, I keep thinking that the interests for banning privacy focused projects is what drives that bad sentiment and bad press. Not only that, I know betwen black and white there are grays and colours :D
Just my grain of salt