The couple of times I have tried to use it to search for a very specific GIF (like searching for a specific clip from a movie) it hasn't really worked, but whenever I use it for more general stuff like "/giphy cardio sucks" or "/giphy hooray" I get some pretty pleasing results.
People keep posting them in Slack all the time, but I find it about as appropriate as that brief time when all my uni teachers decided that it's hip to include rage comic faces into every other slide of every presentation.
</rant>, yes I know, I'm fun at parties…
I'm grateful communication on MatterMost at my company has not seen the need for reaction gifs emerge; the wildest thing we have is a custom emoji of a dancing banana.
If this is an ironic joke, it's a good one. If not, it's painfully un-self-aware.
Because "feels like I'm in Darmok" is just an meaningless in isolation as "Temba, his arms wide."
When people use it, it looks the same to me like if they were using “Live long and prosper” in casual conversation.
Grok is not simply understanding or knowing a thing, it’s knowing that thing so well and all the things related to that thing, and understanding all of your feelings associated with that thing, that it becomes a part of you. At least, that was my interpretation of it.
Heinlein’s explanation and exposition is more detailed in the actual book. If you have not read it, highly recommended.
This is how new forms of communication develop. Sometimes they're random images (images that'll probably be used for even more extensive tracking now), sometimes they're playful changes to language, sometimes they're intentionally invented or modified words because the language lacked a word for a given purpose, and if they catch on enough with enough people they'll become part of communication. Because brains and pattern matching.
Grok works in English, I've been reading it for, what, 20 years in English texts. It mightn't be in dictionaries but they're not the sole arbiters of language.
It comes from US English, AFAIK, a neonym from Heinlein (the sci-fi writer).
English speakers seem to have this weird idea that all people need to use language that everyone can understand.
Other languages tailor their speaking patterns given the class, context, and people around them.
Sounds beautifully dystopian.
and before that, plaintext emoticons...
Giphy takes way too much space.
Also, why does Teams not have a :shrug: icon. Seriously?
I got tired of collapsing them
/collapse is your friend here.
1. Type a couple words relevant to the topic or your feelings on the topic into a gif search engine.
2. Pick whichever gif suits the context best.
3. Watch as everyone thinks you're super clever.
I mean, I get it. Most people just want funny pictures, and I love sharing memes with friends. But something about reaction gifs just boils my blood. I'm very, very bothered by them. If someone posts a relevant comment, or video: great. If there's something really clever about the reaction gif: good job. But most of the time it's just kind of related, and not really a discussion at all. Or worst of all, a "wow" "lol" or "wtf" expressing funny face.
I've recently a colleague who used the tongue out emoji for sarcasm and the eye roll one for, well, eye rolling with disdain in reaction to something.
The first chat discussions were then quite awkward, because when I were to write something like "You should have tested your code before deploying it... :eyeroll:", he was thinking I was openly looking down on him in front of the team.
We had to have a real discussion about it. It made me tone down my use of emojis - and sarcasm. I suppose using animated emojis (they were in MSN I think?), or GIF reactions would have made the things clearer.
But why would you assume this works for a random stranger? It seems much more logical to assume they’ll interpret the thing you’ve written as being said while actually rolling your eyes.
That said, it seems entirely appropriate to look down on someone that doesn’t test their code before deploying.
My other colleagues were not confused by my usage of the emoji, although they've known me for some time now, and they know that I'm not the type of person to actually roll my eyes while talking to someone, or even look down on them.
At least it was a nice reminder that our ways, customs and habits, no matter how normal they seem to ourselves, can still look crazy from the outside.
But I agree with you, it may have been one of the best sentence to use this emoji with. :)
The official spec calls it "PERSON WITH FOLDED HANDS".. the keyword there is "person" (in contrast to, for example, "1FAC2;PEOPLE HUGGING" when there is multiple people). The emoji is of a single person folding their hands, which really isn't a high five unless you're somehow high five-ing yourself.
And that persistent dancing parrot animated emoji.
Luckily the bot ended up doing more valuable things too, but the original design of the bot was purely for abusing the colleagues on my team.
And it had the intended effect, people still joke but slack is not pegging my CPU, rendering animated images anymore.
The term to Google here is “digital blackface”.
If you bring this to more people’s attention my guess is that reaction GIFs will become less prevalent in your office.
I don't think there's any solid evidence of disproportional use of of one ethnic group by another. You can certainly find individuals who thoughtlessly or deliberately do that but generalizing that to some random population (eg of office workers) is likely wrong.
Which, I have to say, just made me feel a little sad and now I'm actually starting to consider how giphy's are made... David Finlayson is a world-class trombone player and to have his video reduced to those tags (and associated with that context) was startling. The original video is here, in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soDn2puEuL8
Did somebody edit the video to create that gif, or could that have been machine generated? Are human-made gifs actually a source for image tagging with context???
This sort of solution "Make it easy for the rest of us" is a tried and true winner of traction for products.
For users it can be useless because they do not seam to understand multiple words and they do not have localized memes, so they for example don't understand dutch words and they don't have dutch memes.
Last time I tried: dragging in gifs (or mp4s or webps) resulted in an attachment, not an inline gif, giphy wanted money to upload your own gifs, and gfycat had some kind of slow and inconsistent review process so that your gifs don't show up in search (or in the slack plugin) for weeks to months after you upload them.
I'm begging to suspect that there's a setting, hidden size threshold, or something involved.
And then they manage to make it hard to actually post the gif you found via the search engine, so you end up using the giphy platform to do it.
Do gifs really only happen on slack for y'all? That's the place I encounter them the least, and I think that's a good thing.
On the other hand, a ton of other places are more suitable for gifs, and (even) less suitable for using a facebook service, so this really hurts right now.
Overall I'm quite sad to see how centralized freaking gif-sharing is, and that it's happenind mostly in walled gardens?!
What do you mean? https://giphy.com/search/it-works works for me.
Sounds like a perfect match for Facebook :)
The other day I wanted to send a pic of Naomi Scott from “Aladdin” to my colleagues, but I couldn’t get even a single decent one. There was just one in which she was turning around, but that was not even a second long, so no one would had figured out who she was anyways.
Contrast this to Tenor on WhatsApp and the results are much more satisfying.
Disclaimer: I am the jaded creator of Twicsy, a Twitter picture engine with many millions of visitors over its lifetime, and I apparently missed the boat on this trends and had to shut it down.
Think of Giphy images as a giant, organically shared version of web tracking software. Which complements the coverage of the FB Pixel well, as it worms its way into privacy-conscious areas they might not have FB Pixel coverage such as private communications and security/privacy-minded apps. And without implementing something like a proxy server to pre-cache/sanitize images and strip tracking identifiers in both directions, it's a tracking vector that's hard to keep out of your app without introducing user friction.
Given that cynical viewpoint, the valuation makes a ton of sense.
It really is getting to the point that if you want privacy, don't touch anything owned by the top 5 tech companies. Better yet, only use Open Source. I never used to be a OSS only person, but the past few months I've started to go that way.
Signal's integration is specifically engineered to _not_ do this: https://signal.org/blog/signal-and-giphy-update/
Also the Signal service could do a transparent TLS MitM between the app and Giphy instead of a passthrough TLS tunnel and the user apps would be unaware. In fact from that page I'm not sure they're even doing a tunnel anyway.
I wouldn't even call that cynical. It's just the state of things.
It's waaaaay more efficient nowadays and way more creepy, but it's not a new invention.
It's behavior is no different from Windows 10 telemetry. The keyboard does not even work if you disable one of the underlying telemetry services in the app (if you have a rooted device).
edit: apparently wrong/outdated information.
For Discord, while they initially used Giphy and has a /giphy command, it now uses Tenor too in the GIF picker.
Developing such a tool might be valuable for privacy-conscious application developers.
 Can't find a page specifically detailing it, but  gives a basic synopsis on it in the context of allowing GSuite admins to whitelist internal domains from routing through the proxy.
Not if the app developer proxies the encrypted traffic.
That way the app dev does not know the content and the third party does not know which original IP requested it.
This is akin to the Signal-Giphy implementation.
Paraphrasing: emojis serving as web bugs.
Acquisitions often happen after some value is lost from the company being acquired, like when Microsoft bought Nokia or when Yahoo bought Tumblr.
However, that doesn't stop carriers from inserting something at the start of the stream that the client doesn't see. It would need to be coordinated with the origin server, but that's already true for HTTP header insertion. Sending a pre-handshake blob to a TLS server that isn't expecting such a blob would fail hard though, rather than going on its merry way like an extra header usually would.
But you still see nondescript references to the capability in places like that that up-to-date Adobe Analytics doc, and the carriers aren't trying to use legal means (a la lobbying) to slow down the uptick in HTTPS traffic and preserve their revenue stream. Which leads me to presume they've developed technical solutions that are compatible with HTTPS traffic. They can't really use the spray-and-pay method they were using. But all bets are off when they destination site and the carriers are coordinating with each other, as that coordination can involve technical modifications to facilitate it in addition to just the whitelisting itself.
 Some carriers would inject a header into all traffic, and any interested party could slurp them up. But you'd have to pay the carrier to access any of the other information the carrier had for that particular identifier.
Theres been this fake (steal) it till you make it, wild west approach to growth. Youtube, Buzzfeed, Imgur. You just host anybodys content regardless of if the poster is the owner, and once you get to scale, then you handle copyright and creating your own content so you arent as dependent on external creators.
But in Giphys case, they never have to take the extra step. Because they are so short, they are much more likely to pass fair use, and they can just host anybodys anything, barring some illegal fringes, without having to pay for the rights.
Incredible. What a strange time we live in.
This makes me wonder, does Disney have any say if someone uploads a home-made Mickey gif that is controversial or otherwise damaging to their brand?
I don't think this is quite fair to YouTube. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing ContentID. It's not perfect, but it's without a doubt the most sophisticated system to date. It's a difficult problem, but I don't see how you can say they've "thrown up their hands".
You can say what you like, but that's genius level politics-business IMO.
Am I responsible when stolen goods are sold from my stalls?
I own and operate an RV park. Someone is selling illegal drugs from one of the RVs.
Am I responsible for the illegal drug sales?
You might not be liable for the sale itself but, depending on the details, you could definitely still have serious legal risk.
fair use is an affirmative defense, where you say "yes i stole it, but the government should not protect the content owner from me," similar to "yes i injured them, but it was self defense and they do not deserve compensation."
intellectual property violations are not theft in the strictest sense of the word, they don't remove the original. stealing in this context is colloquial.
Without intellectual property law, you would be free to copy anything. The barrier to copying is the government. The free pass to flaunt their rule, when qualified, is also the government.
- $150MM raised
- $400MM sale price
- $400MM - $150MM 1x preferred = $250MM (assuming not ratchet up for selling below last preferred price)
- $250MM net to shareholders.
- 50% for preferred investor share holders
- 25% to founders
- 25% to individual contributors
- 25% of $250MM = $62.5MM
These are all just estimates
Investors get either the 1x or convert to common. So the most recent investors will take their 1x ($72mm if public sources are correct, which might include some shares bought by previous investors), but previous investors are likely to convert to common if their price per share of purchase is below the acquisition price. But even in your simple example, the $250mm is only split between founders and team, the shareholders who take their 1x are done prior to that point.
I can imagine an alternate 2020 where an independent Instagram is growing like a weed and the founders are much more wealthy.
The facebook hate really just gets out of hand sometimes.
Hundreds of millions of smokers do harm their health, and through it their own and their neighbors' wealth. But quitting is indeed hard.
You must come from a nice family.
Some people don't. Some people are actively in hiding from their families and things like that.
Some schizophrenics go to in-patient treatment, get better, go home to their nutty relatives and get worse again. This is a known thing.
You're right: It's easy to smoke outside without harming anyone but yourself -- and even if you smoke indoors, you only harm one room full of people at a time.
Don't get me wrong, I use Facebook once in a while to keep in touch with my friends, and in rare occurrence I even feel "Damn, I'm thankful that Facebook exist" I can see the good in them, but the problem they cause to society cannot be denied. The witch hunt, the cyberbully, the echo chambers, the life's hilight showreel effect, the "do whatever in order to get the Like", etc. (Ugh, I need two A4 to list them all!) These problems may existed since the dawn of internet, but it is amplified by social media, and many of them pioneered by Facebook.
I log into FB about once a day and see some pictures of friends who live far away and their children. Sometimes people post funny things. A couple of friends occasionally post interesting or thought provoking articles. My experience as a user is almost entirely positive.
Meanwhile at some level I know it can and is being used in abusive and bad ways. Cyber-bullying, sure. The ever-present outrage machine, pitting the God-loving Americans against the God-hating ones, certainly thrives there. And I once read something or other about enabling horrible hate crimes in Myanmar. And the company itself seems to be a scandal factory, bent on a kind of dystopian mission of collecting data on everyone.
I do struggle a bit with how much to blame the company versus, well, the people who are misusing it. I think a constant lesson of this whole internet thing has been: you can develop the most utterly amazing tools ever, but at least some of your users will take them and use them to be absolute shits.
Hard to feel bad about it.
That's an incredible leap to say IG couldn't develop their own ad network as a stand alone company. Hire a few people away from Google with options in a growing company the same way FB did.
If IG didn't sell they would have fully killed Facebook's relevancy by now.