DISQUS

I have my own set of obsessions/addictions, and whenever I see myself crossing the line I ask myself: How would I "suffer" more? Staying without X (FriendFeed in your case) for three full days, or not seeing/talking to my wife and/or children for three days?

Depending on your answer, you may or may not need that intervention and may have crossed the line, not between hobby/interest and addiction, but between addiction and obsession. I think being addicted to something is usually not a bad thing (we're not talking drugs here), but being obsessed it often is.

BTW if your answer is that you've been without seeing your family for three days in a row but it was ok because you could contact them via FriendFeed, then I leave to someone else to do the analysis.

Having said that, do what you like doing as long as you know what your priorities are and stick to them.

So it is no secret to say that Twitter wasn't created with scalability in mind - like 90% of all "2.0" projects. After all, Twitter was born and it stayed completely in the dark for over 8 months until it exploded at the SXSW'07. I don't think it went down during those first 8 months (and if it did, not many people noticed anyway).

And ever since the first time it went down, chances are they've been patching and optimizing things here and there, when perhaps what Twitter needs is a complete remake - which shouldn't really be THAT hard considering Twitter is above all, a very simple application - that thing doesn't put a spacecraft in Mars - so the main focus should be scalability. Perhaps they're doing that already. If not, they should.

On the other hand, FF most likely has been created with scalability in mind, and so far, other than throwing hardware at it, as long as they're somewhat ahead of the growth game, it doesn't need anything to stay afloat as it grows. It's not rocket science either - they simply didn't (supposedly) ignore the possibility of growth when they started to write their software. Which is what everyone should do when starting a project, and there's plenty of documentation out there and plenty of great engineers who know how to architect a simple (or complex) app so that it will scale if necessary.

Leaving that aside, the business model is a very interesting and fair question. No, I don't agree with Om. Not because I don't think super-users shouldn't be charged, but because charging super-users doesn't fix anything, scalability-wise. I also don't think Om understands how Twitter works internally. Ok, *I* don't know how Twitter works, but if it does the way Om describes it, then the folks at Twitter absolutely definitely need to rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Personally I didn't like neither Obasanjo's nor Om's articles at all. You? Well, you're talking about Twitter and FriendFeed, and a bit of Facebook. Thank god for that "This is why I love the tech industry" article, because it is for posts like that I'm still reading you. (No offense, I just don't use neither Tw nor FF, so this fun madness you guys have is completely out of my radar...)

Where did I see another story about the TImes today? Ah, it was here:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2008/nq0805...

:-)

"Yes, it’s cool to look through a telescope and see things and look around the sky and have a personal experience"

And that's exactly what I was trying to encourage with my first comment, Robert, nothing more.

I agree I used an extreme example (fireworks), but that was mainly to amplify my point. I still think that 15 minutes staring at the Milky Way in really dark skies will be a memorable experience a "city" person will remember for the rest of their lives, while looking at a Hubble picture... chances are ithey won't. That was all I was trying to do with my first comment, Robert. And certainly I didn't get into what's best to learn the skies - for that, nothing beats something like the WWT or other software such as Starry Night, no question about that!!

My rant in my response to your comment is the result of you calling me a wise guy simply for considering that a live view of the Milky Way beats looking at any Hubble picture (I still think that way and I just explained why I think), for saying that all you saw in my original comment was idiocy, and for saying "you don't see shit", because honestly, then we amateur astronomers must be definitely a bunch of idiots for going through that much trouble to stare at "shit" :-/

In that long comment I might have oversold the hobby as you say, probably because I did feel that with your "don't see shit" comment you undersold it, so I went out of my way to "defend" it. Can you blame me? After all, many people think you're always overselling stuff: Facebook (before), FriendFeed (now) and even the WWT :-) Why? Because you're pasionate about it - that doesn't make you a "wise guy" nor an idiot. Same here, Robert. We don't stare at shit and we definitely like it "live" more than on TV (and yes, we also love it on TV :-)

BTW you don't need the Hubble to take amazing astro pictures. I invite you to see what your "cheap" Canon 5D can do :-) See? You can go out, "live" the experience, have fun, and take a really coooool souvenir home!! :-)

Robert, calm down.

I said "There’s no better view of the sky than looking at the summer Milky Way under really dark skies". I repeat, Milky Way.

Yes, the Milky Way is a galaxy, but not the type of galaxy you're talking about. And to me, that view of the Milky Way beats any fireworks, and certainly the very best Hubble picture. But that's me.

Sure, most galaxies and nebulae look faint on a telescope, yet, it is a thrill - at least for me - to actually see them LIVE, even if they're faint (I can assure you however, that the Orion nebula even on just a 11" telescope" is anything but faint, and yes, it IS amazing to see it live, right there above your head. And how many wows and jaw droppings I've seen from people just by staring at Saturn "live" through a telescope the very first time? A lot.

I'm not a wise guy Robert, not by a mile. I'm a guy who loves astronomy. I enjy the Hubble pictures, I enjoy taking pictures myself, and I enjoy observing things "in site". What do I like best? Observing and taking photos myself. Please do not consider that as idiocy. I'm sure most amateur astronomers would agree with me, that's why we run out of the door anytime there's a new moon and no clouds, drive at least 50 miles to darker sites, and freeze in cold winter nights so we can observe and do "that thing we do". I wouldn't change any of that for the best picture from the Hubble. That doesn't make me a wise guy, just a guy who is passionate about this hobby. Something I think you also must be, just by reading the title of this post of yours.

BTW you know I've invited you countess times to spend an astrophotography session with me and the gang. And the invitation is still up. Wait til summer and come up to Fremont Peak when the fog rolls in and leave us up above the fog in complete darkness. You too might think different.

Having said that, under dark skies in the right season, you can even see the Andromeda galaxy with your bare eyes. Sure it might be just a blur, but what an amazing blur it is when you actually see it with your own eyes.

Astronomy may "look" better on TV, just lik ewatching a football game on TV you'll get closeups and follow the action without moving your neck, but nothing beats "live", whether it's a football game, a faint nebula, a concert, or simply staring at the summer Milky Way.

Jimconnolly, have you ever seen some really cool fireworks "live"? Have you seen them on TV? BIG difference, isn't it? :-)

Trust me, there's no better view of the sky than looking at the summer Milky Way under really dark skies - you won't even need a telescope! Try it sometime, then come back to your computer, stare at WWT or any other similar program, then you'll re-think what you just said :-) Also, next time you'll look up to the sky from your light polluted town (I'm assuming you don't live in the middle of nowhere), you'll look at it in a different way. Certainly from my city (Sunnyvale), going outside means little when it comes to look at the night sky.

BTW I think this project is really cool. Not because it does something that has never been done before, but because the more the merrier, plus Microsoft has a way to get it into the masses where other more dedicated projects didn't (and it wasn't their goal anyway).

I'm hoping that the social part of WWT is better exploited - that's where this project could really shine.

Robert, after playing with it for a few minutes, I think that the most remarkable feature (other than a nice interface design) is the "community" option. Not from what it can do - it really isn't clear - but from what I think it might be able to do.

The rest of features - again leaving aside a very nice interface - are already present in desktop software apps such as TheSky or the much fancier StarryNight (Pro Plus). For example, do a Image Google search on "starry night pro plus" to see some screenshots.

Of course I don't discount the fact that StarryNight hasn't done a thing to bring astronomy closer to people who otherwise wouldn't care, and WWT might do just that, and that is a *very good thing*.

F-Up: I said perhaps you misunderstood what I mean by “noise”. But it could also be that *I* misunderstood what you meant by noise as well :-)

Robert, I don't read The New York Times... Well, unless it shows up in some of my alert feeds :-) Perhaps you misunderstood what I mean by "noise".

I like to read things that matter to me from different sources. To me, that's not noise. Noise is either things that do not matter to me or things that IMO add nothing of value, a distraction, a nuisance... Occasionally - more frequenstly than not - noise gets in the way... And I try to avoid it. ANd yes, by doing that, perhaps every once in a while I miss a really good point of view, details, et. but that's the tradeoff. I don't have the time to dig into the deepest details of every news that pop up. Lukcly those who can. Yet, I survive, and trust me, I'm doing fine :-)

Anyway, I do follow you, so when I miss that really good point, I know good old Scoble will make sure I don't miss it :-)

FriendFeed or Techmeme? Well, I don't really use neither of them :-)

Why? Well... my life doesn't revolve around things like this as much as yours. Besides sleeping/eating/etc.. roughly I spend 60% working (on something I love BTW), 25% with the family, and 15% on hobbies - you might consider that reading blogs (like yours), etc. is a hobby, but fortunately I also have others away from the computer (bless them!!).

And of course, it's really cool to live a life like that too :-). I don't swear against FriendFeed, I just don't use it.

Am I an early adopter? I'd say I'm an "early observer". In other words, I don't go nuts about Twitter, FriendFeed, etc. but I'm very much aware of them and how they're impacting other people's lives (early adopters for now :-). And I'm sure I'm not alone. There probably are a lot more "early observers" than "adopters", don't you think?

Oh and I can't stand the noise :-) You're certainly one of a kind :-)

Man, you REALLY like that picture holding the camera and pointing at me :-)

Anyway, congrats, I like it. Let's just hope the meat in the sandwich also continues as juicy as usual :-)

It's really good to enjoy mother nature once in a while!! I envy you!

BTW - I know you will cover astrophotography in PhotoCycle at least once, right? :-) We'll be going out day yes/day no this week. If you wanna come, let me know! ;-)

I wonder if WWT will render the sky as nice as desktop apps such as Starry Night, TheSky6, etc. Those (especially Starry Night) are really really nice too.

BTW Robert, in my spare time (huh, what's that?) I'm an amateur astrophotographer, and you're welcome to join us in one of our Star Parties :-) Not quite a photowalk because well, rather than walking you've got to stay put :-) but might be a fun experiece for you as well :-) Just drop me a line if interested!

Ah, rich kids street race tales :-)

Me? I ride an SUV - wife, kids... you know the drill, don't you Robert? :-) and it beats the load capacity of that Tesla anytime of the year :-) Try buying a 80" HDTV and load it inside that puny little car :-)

Have you seen that bumper sticker that goes "You're looking at my other car" :-)

Is that San Gregorio beach? It's not bad but I'm sure you can think of 'better' ones, right? :-) Have you been there at night on a fog/cloud free night yet?

"would you have said that Google wasn’t going to be worth $100 billion back in 1999"

No. Nobody was talking about Google back then. However people did talk very high about other companies such as, you know, Webvan and their friends.

Chances are the company that might be worth 100 billions in 8 years is not in the spotlight today.

Robert, somehow I think you're trying to make a point about Techmeme's relevance, but perhaps it's a bit too much thinking "inside the box".

I have a site that gets about 10 million pageviews/month whose main source of visitors, besides Google, Yahoo (yes, Yahoo) and direct access, are blogger.com, programas-gratis.net, stumbleupon.com, bloglines.com and msn.com

Blogger, Bloglines? Mind you, it's not a blog nor a blogging platform!

But programas-gratis.net? This is a rustic website with only a 1,500 rating in Alexa (regardless of what it can be said about Alexa). Nonetheless, it scores (at Alexa) much better than Techmeme.

Your stats may show Techmeme as a major source, but in the big picture, I don't think it means much, neither to prove your point nor to disregard it about Techmeme's relevance.

Building your success on top of an existing network is not risk free. The network itself can, at any time, leverage itself, build what you're doing, and kill you.

Granted that if you get critical mass within the network before they can do what you do, the it would be difficult for them to catch up but remember, you're in their territory, and if they want, they can do really nasty things in order to get their way. Of course, if you have your own network, you can still become obsolete if a large networks starts doing what you're doing, but at least they cannot shut you down. Remember Alexaholic? Or the many widget sites for MySpace?

I guess what I'm saying is that building on top of an existing network has its own set of risks.

Social Graph: A term I probably read about 5 times in the last 5 years, and 500 times in the last 7 days. I'm with PXLated. Now what?

Congratulations! BTW, Milan shares the birthday with my 1st daughter (she turned 5 years old today).

9lbs is no little baby! I also wish Maryam a speedy recovery. Yup, we get the easy part, so now it's the time to give back :-)

Well, you seem to want Facebook to be everything for you and perhaps also to be the best at it, and you know that it will never be. There will always be other tools out there more suitable for such and such task (Jack of all trades...). And the bigger Facebook becomes, the harder it'll be for it to adapt. And of course, it will never be able to please everyone. You know that.

So if I don't use Facebook, we cannot be friends? Pitty :-P

In addition to the comments that point out you're assuming Google is just going to sit pretty and watch, once again you're assuming the world is a piece of land formed by 50 states.

I am one of those who agree that Mahalo's survival depends precisely on implementing good SEO.

Robert, you might find this interesting reading, or perhaps utopically boring:
http://bradfitz.com/social-graph-problem/

It's 5 days old but it still applies :-)

Somehow I think their business model is somewhere else, rather than and advanced suggestion box management.

And "Should Do This" should definitely add RSS feeds (if they already have them, sorry, I didn't see them).