Imagine your role is allocating spending on $10B/year of medical research and you are presented with two strategies: spend everything searching for the cure for one poorly understood condition, or allocate to treatments improving standard of care for 100 conditions.
Improving standard of care for 100 is less risky/more profitable because you have more shots at an expensive process with a high failure rate. And it is a lower bar to improve patient care than to permanently fix a medical mystery. But there is another factor. Focusing on treatment/management over cure most likely maximizes the positive impact on patients within the the constraints you work under.
There have been at least three new major treatments for a chronic thing I have that received FDA approval over my lifetime. Those treatments have had a massive impact on my quality of life, ability to have a career, etc. I don't believe that happens for me if we allocate to cures.
I'm genuinely glad you have new treatments and its improving your quality of life.
The point I am making is that you are a/ not getting cured, and b/ paying a lot of money. The reason for this, is this is best strategy for maximising profits. Its really the exact same model as your local heroin/crack dealer.
Please set me straight if those conditions differ in your case.
Profits are what pharma companies want.
The consumer is mostly labouring under the illusion that companies want the best for you. They are not your mum. They want what's best for them. And, most people would do the same - no one is gifting anyone health.
All I'm saying is let's drop the illusions and fantasy and call a spade a spade.
The local illicit drug dealer comparison doesn't apply because you can't simply ignore the development time and cost of FDA approved drugs. My post was about allocating limited capital to pharmaceutical research, and maximizing benefit.
Again, if your choice is improving quality of care for 100 conditions or trying to moonshot your way to curing one disease, more patients benefit from the former even if pharma also profits more.
Your case is even stronger because understanding the 100 conditions is likely to lead to a few being cured and build the technology base for the moonshoot to be vastly easier.
Isn't this the sort of moment that pushes users off of Discord into alternatives? Maybe pragmatic/opportunistic users should establish new channels or servers and advertise them when the shoe drops on Discord.
To be an alternative it had to be an alternative. Not "we had a great community with image uploads, voice chats, client parity across all platforms, miltiple servers set up in one click, songle login, game integrations etc., so now we move to this broken disjointed landscape of inconsistently implemented features"
Most users don't need every single one of those features. It reminds me of the conversations about lemmy and the fediverse after the reddit api uproar. The alternative link aggregators didn't need to do everything well, just the core things well enough to build a community that sustains engagement and becomes discoverable. But it failed at the major pieces: performance, scalability, media handling, moderation, governance, and federation. In contrast, I would argue xmpp covers a strong subset of commonly used discord features well enough to provide the chat/social component to many existing communities.
Most users only need 20 percent or so of your features, but among a large enough group of users they all want a different 20 percent so it kinda adds up. Or so the old saying goes.
I think this will be a pretty similar case because discord straddles "small personal servers with ten friends" and "large official servers with 500 users for a particular game" and "tech support forum for an open source project", and one user might be in all of those servers pretty easily.
Hasn't social media like HN, Reddit, fediverse, etc. become the real clearinghouse of information about those sorts of questions? I can see how it would be nice for xmpp.org to be an authoritative source of truth, but user response/consensus seems more relevant these days, at least to me.
Matrix has a for-profit, venture funded company (Element) that is effectively behind the reference/flagship server and client implementations.
xmpp is far less centralized. Virtually all of the modern clients are single developer projects that live off day jobs and grants.
There are different ways to look at it. Matrix has done a great job at organizing resources to push the platform forward. xmpp has an impressive ecosystem and some incredible client implementations on a shoe string budget, that would probably look/function better and have lots more features given funding parity.
I think as we've seen with other projects like Immich, organizing and recruiting resources is an important part of delivering the modern experiences that users expect today from open source projects. Open source and self-hostable can't be an excuse for missing features.
Trying to build a secure system on top of email is a waste of time and energy. Even if you succeeded, it would only be by compromising all the things that make email useful.
Scratched enough that it was not working any more? IME CDs work surprisingly well even with scratches, way way better than LPs though. You need to properly gouge the surface before things become problematic.
I remember friends of same age to also actually switch browsers by themselves, suddenly finding that their computer now used Firefox instead because it was simply faster. Same reason everyone switched to Chrome at a later point.
Improving standard of care for 100 is less risky/more profitable because you have more shots at an expensive process with a high failure rate. And it is a lower bar to improve patient care than to permanently fix a medical mystery. But there is another factor. Focusing on treatment/management over cure most likely maximizes the positive impact on patients within the the constraints you work under.
There have been at least three new major treatments for a chronic thing I have that received FDA approval over my lifetime. Those treatments have had a massive impact on my quality of life, ability to have a career, etc. I don't believe that happens for me if we allocate to cures.