Or should this be more specific in that you shouldn't shorten URLs using the provider's domain name, but bring your own domain. So if the provider goes away, you can in some way migrate the links.
That's why I set up my own thing.
I don't care about analytics at all, so I just wrote a simple build system doto generate some very basic HTML redirects.
As a hypertext purist, I used to think this. But working for a large organization, shortlinks can be an invaluable way to actually maintain the integrity of links that have been deployed to unrevisable media (emails, print, pdfs, etc).
If a resource has been relocated off of a host/url, often part of that situation is that we don't have immediate access to implement a redirect from that host to the resource's new location.
Now I see a shortlink manager as a centralized redirect manager, which is so much more rational and stable than creating a tangle of redirect config across dozens of hosts or hundreds of content applications.
The caveat is that you don't need to use a 3rd party domain or service, you should definitely at least use your own domain. You also don't need to make them unreadable hashes, they can actually be more human-friendly.
Wow, I agree! That was beyond expectations. The only let-down was the AI contradicted itself when I tried layering on conditionals. It was something like this:
"What time works"
"Morning on tuesday would be best, but I can also do afternoon"
"I'm sorry, I didn't catch what time in the afternoon you wanted"
"No, I said the morning"
"I'm having a hard time hearing you. What time in the morning did you want?"
"10am"
And from there things were fine. It seemed very rigid on picking a time and didn't suggest times when I laid out a range.
Incredible, even has a bit of "human-like" passive-aggression when I was asking dumb questions:
[Me] what kind of dental equipment do you use?
[AI] (sigh) we use a variety of reputable brands for our dental equipment, was there anything specific you'd like to know?
It almost sounded like she was rolling her eyes at that question, like I was wasting her time haha
It's quite evident after you read a few. Typically convoluted and fancy English.
In other words: Upon perusal of a mere handful, the prevailing characteristic becomes abundantly clear. The prose predominantly revels in a labyrinthine complexity, intertwined with a flourish of ornate lexicon.
That looks more like someone who writes cover letters with a thesaurus. (I'm sure they exist).
With ChatGPT some of its stock phrases are quite easily recognisable and I'm sure they're a lot more recognisable having seen 30 other generic cover letters that also use them!
The overall tone is bloodless, in a relentlessly smooth, confident style. The articles on the news site Axios.com have a similar style - relaxing to read at first, but feel bereft of any convictions after a while.
Sounds like you'd be interested in having a teletype machine, a system for triggering key presses on a physical typing interface using digital signals (not to be confused with a teletype machine, a system for triggering digital signals using key presses on a physical typing interface).
Same. Can't imagine why they've been using it for so long instead of building a reasonable UX for this use case. I think this will cost them a bunch of traction.
I believe the fact that it's in Discord is actually the main reason it became so popular so fast. The number one thing that makes something popular is other people already doing it.
When you go into a Discord and you are watching hundreds of people use a product in real time, you almost have to try it. When Midjourney first blew up, it was probably one of the most profound moments in marketing of the internet era.
As usual, people will happily give you the worst advice possible. There were people telling them to drop the Discord interface on day one. If they had listened to them, they would have killed off their amazing marketing advantage and stunted their growth.
Completely correct. They did a lot of testing of a variety of user interfaces before choosing Discord.
With a web interface, new users would come in a prompt “dog”, “funny dog”, “two funny dogs”, get bored and leave. But, when a bunch of new users would prompt together in a Discord channel, they would riff off of each other constantly and get creative and detailed with immediate feedback from other users. Engagement and retention were both incredibly higher.
From Day One people have been telling them that Discord was a terrible mistake. All while Discord was measurably a huge success. MJ has been working on a web interface for a long time now. But, Discord has been tough to beat in the big picture.
Midjourney became famous by being ahead of the competition, using the Discord interface is convenient but it doesn't make them any favour at making the service more popular.
>When you go into a Discord and you are watching hundreds of people use a product in real time
The ability to use MJ outside of the server is relatively new, so it has not had an impact on awareness of the service.
The chat, admin and moderation features in discord have huge value and are costly to build. The anti-bot protection and built in permission system especially.
They focus their resource on their product, while exposing it to mostly geek.
I would have never though it would be a good idea, but it proved to be a good choice.
The social flow of prompting together with other people is unique when it happens. (Sadly the channels on the main server are now mostly a flood of random people who are ignoring each other.)
I couldn't find any evidence for this font having particularly good legibility (such as a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) test), but my hunch is that it's not that great.
It was probably optimized for low-res screens and specifically for monospace usage.
