We send many thousands of delivery notifications per day on SMS over Twilio. I've been wanting to use RCS for a long time (better group notification experiences, branded identification etc). Tried to do so last month: you pay a fee (I think $500) to enable RCS with a third-party only to find out that a small percentage of devices have it enabled making it effectively useless. So we switched to WhatsApp.
> only to find out that a small percentage of devices have it enabled making it effectively useless.
Which means a lot of people actively don't want it and have turned it off or not elected to turn it on when setting up a new phone. I got prompted to turn it on with my now S65 a while ago and said no (I just want basic works-everywhere simple SMS, thanks, for anything fancier I've got chat-app-de-jour. It got turned on anyway so I had to find the option and turn it back off.
> We were heavy users of Claude Code ($70K+ spend per year) and have almost completely switched to codex CLI
Seeing comments like this all over the place. I switched to CC from Cursor in June / July because I saw the same types of comments. I switched from VSCode + Copilot about 8 months before that for the same reason. I remember being skeptical that this sort of thing was guerilla marketing, but CC was in fact better than Cursor. Guess I'll try Codex, and I guess that it's good that there are multiple competing products making big strides.
Never would have imagined myself ditching IDEs and workflows 3x in a few months. A little exhausting
I think it’s a lot less exhausting now that the IDE part is mostly decoupled. I can’t imagine cursor continuing to compete when really all they’re doing is selling tokens either a markup, and hence crushing your context on every call. Sorry if that sounds negative but it’s true.
I use CC and codex somewhat interchangeably, but I have to agree with the comments. Codex is a compete monster, and there really isn’t any competition right now.
OpenAI seems to limit how "hard" your gpt-5-codex can think depending on your subscription plan; whereas Anthropic/Claude only limits how much use you get. I evaluate Codex every month or so with a problem suited to it, but rarely gets merged over a version produced by Charlie (which yes is $500/mo, but rarely causes problems) or something Claude did in a managed or unmanaged session. ymmv
The graph shoes interquartile range, so this wouldn't be a factor, but worth noting: baseball also changed its rules on extra inning games in the past few years which speeds things up. A runner starts on second base which reduces the 0-run extra innings that are responsible for the 19 inning game I remember as a kid. [0]
I love baseball and I love that the hacker culture seems to love baseball too.
I read that part of baseball's decline from the premiere American sport was due to its outdated revenue model (strict reliance on ticket sales). The NFL in 80s really embraced TV and reached more fans and here we are. MLB has been recently way ahead of the curve on streaming (MLB.tv, AWS StatCast etc).
I hope projects like this contribute to baseball regaining popularity
I fully support sports gambling being legal but holy shit, the legalization of sports gambling in the USA had such a terrible effect on sports coverage.
I have not watched the MLB in a while so I don't know specifically what you are talking about but I can imagine.
There is an ad for a sports book on screen no less than 50% of a broadcast, not including ad breaks, for the majority of teams. Either it's an ad behind home plate, a jersey patch, the broadcasters themselves reading the latest odds, or a combination of those and more. It is absolutely insane.
This is a great idea. I always thought that if there has to be online gambling, it should be a government monopoly, and it should be managed by the most incompetent employees.
I was just having this conversation with friends a few days ago. We do still watch games, but we all used to also watch sports news/talk shows (e.g. morning pre-football coverage, SportsCenter, and the like) and most of us have stopped. Some of the shows are now exclusively focused on betting.
I'm all for consenting adults to be able to legally place wagers at outlets that are not swindling them, or offering the kinds of loans that could get a person's legs broken.
But I'm so tired of ALL THE COVERAGE being about betting. It was more fun when the coverage was mostly sports, and Al Michaels had to sneak in the odd mention of what the point spread was for a game he was broadcasting.
Even my friends who enjoy gambling don't like the media coverage of it. I guess we're not a representative sample.
> Even my friends who enjoy gambling don't like the media coverage of it.
You may well be representative; it’s just that all these parties directly invested in gambling would rather expand gambling as much and as fast as they can, at the expense of turning off their whole audience.
Much like politics, it's been decades since the coverage has had anything substantial to say about the issues or the candidates, it's all treated like a horse race now, who's gained or lost 1% in the polls.
Honestly it's a lot like the alcohol ads being everywhere. I don't have a problem with drinking alcohol but this is supposed to be a sport enjoyed by the whole family, and there are broadcasts where the inning break is filled almost entirely with hard liquor advertisements. Even at the ballpark it's hard to avoid advertising for beer and other drinks.
Sort of? I mean the actual news shows have been replaced by things like ESPN Bet Live[1], which are focused on betting. I'd also like the alcohol ads to be fewer and farther between, but the gambling thing has expanded into shows too, not just ads.
in addition to what Jeremy said, some broadcasts even show the betting line or chances for certain things to happen as the inning is being played (like what are the chances a player hits into a double play or hits a home run, etc.) specifically for the betters.
It's interesting to watch as an international viewer. Sports gambling here has been legal forever and although we get betting company ads during commercial breaks (and some sponsorship stuff) the US has managed to legalise it and make it toxic almost instantly. Commentators and pundits should not be giving odds on air (with rare exceptions). Pundits shouldn't be giving 'their' betting picks. The problem isn't gambling - it's the excess to which it's been implemented.
Unfortunately the future of sports media is ownership by parent companies that also own sports betting sites. The yearly revenue of the largest gambling sites in the US rivals the combine revenue of the MLB, NHL, NBA, and NFL, and some major sports coverage media outlets.
Penn entertainment for example acquired Barstool Sports and The Score, and entered into a 10-year deal with ESPN to create ESPN-bet, for cash and a stake in the company. ESPN is now directly invested in the gambling industry.
I'm not saying this isn't happening, the fact that the RSNs are (mostly?) owned by betting companies does not help.
But, anecdotally, my local (Angels) broadcasts don't talk about it at all. I listen to MLB Radio, and their day time shows barely touch on it (I'm pretty sure there's a odds making show on the radio, but not during prime time in the day).
MLB Network on TV, I do not see it in their main shows. MLB Central doesn't (I don't think, I'm honestly not a regular viewer) really touch on it. MLB Now doesn't, nor does MLB Tonight or Quick Pitch (their overnight highlight show).
There's ads, there's ads in the stadium (big BET MGM sign in Yankee stadium, for example).
So, anyway, on the periphery, it's certainly there, but the shows the MLB seems to put their brand on, I'm not seeing that much of it.
The closest I've see is on the Apple TV broadcasts where they might put up a "28% chance to get on base" in the corner for a batter. Interesting, perhaps, statistic, but I don't know that it necessarily encourages betting.
I watch NBC Sports Bay Area for the SF Giants. I think generally during the broadcast itself they don't mention gambling-related topics much if at all? But during pre and post-game shows they totally do and have sponsored/named segments using gambling/odds.
I get why people say its boring but I love it as well. I don't follow it anymore really and if I tune in randomly I feel similarly - it seems boring. It just takes some exposure before you can appreciate it. The emergent narratives within games, series, and seasons is really special.
Baseball is the perfect sport for our modern screen in hand times. Lots of down time to interact with your phone and any non-routine play will be shown on replay if you don't look up in time.
Football works pretty well for this too. Hockey and Basketball require attention.
If you are into video games, I feel like that is by far the easiest way to learn sports you aren't familiar with. MLB The Show and Super Mega Baseball are both great modern baseball video game series, there are plenty of classics like Ken Griffey on SNES as well.
I think streaming is part of why I DON'T watch baseball. The DTC streaming package for my local team is $20/month. Baseball is something that I would flip on the local team and watch after work passively. The value just isn't there for $20!/month.
I also think it has a huge negative impact on youth interest in baseball. I personally got into baseball as a kid because my father would do the same - get home from work and turn on the game because it was on OTA TV. How are you getting kids interested in the sport if they can't even watch because the parents don't want to fork over that cost? Huge ripple effect. The RSN's which typically carry a vast majority of local baseball games (mlb.tv is blacked out for local markets) bet big on streaming and lost a ton of money[1]. They, in turn, attempted to gouge the remaining dedicated fans at an inflated cost. I already pay $82/month for YoutubeTv. If it's not on there, I just won't watch - in turn, I also go to the ballpark less and really don't keep up with the local team at all.
Root Sports in Seattle started streaming this year at $20 a month. We haven't been watching baseball in recent years because we don't have cable or OTA TV. Root Sports Streaming at $20/mo was a bargain, and it turned out everyone in the family (Mom, Dad, two adult sons) was totally onboard. And of course it was a great year to catch all the games.
And now the Mariners are closing down Root Sports and putting their TV on MLBTV next season. I hope they don't price us right out of baseball again.
You won't be priced out if you were already fine with paying $20/mo. You will be blacked out. The MLB package doesn't include local markets. All of WA and OR are "local" for the Mariners. I think ID and MT are as well.
A terrible way to run a sport. Fortunately, the Tigers are my favored team but it would have been nice to see some Mariners games this year too.
You have no idea what you're talking about. RSNs (which ROOT was) are the reason for the blackouts. With ROOT Sports dissolving and MLB taking over distribution there's nothing to blackout for, so Mariners won't be subject to blackouts going forward.
>Cable subscribers will still be able to view games through a specific channel, and streamers will be able to watch through MLB.TV with no blackouts.
Mlb.tv is comparable to $20/month if not cheaper, but they sell by the season, not the month. Also, MLB has had an ongoing promotion with T-Mobile so one week every year every T-Mobile subscriber can sign up for a season of MLB.tv for free through the T-Mobile Tuesdays app. Non-baseball T-Mobile subscribers often sell their subscription for like $10 at that time on sites like Slickdeals. MLB also starts running 50% off deals starting around May (that's one month into the season).
As an international fan of several US sports MLB are miles ahead on streaming. I can access every single game through their in-house streaming service. Live or on demand. I can pause, skip ahead in-between innings, choose TV or radio commentary. I can watch on my computer, TV, phone, web. They even had a cool experimental Vision Pro app. The NBA isn't too far behind these days. The NFL was good but they've started selling their own in-house streaming rights to national broadcasters internationally so I've went from their decent in-house service to a pretty terrible third-party one.
I've been getting into baseball and what I love about it is the rising tension.
Like how people take turns playing offense and defense and how you can only get runs by touching home plate - and if the inning is over, you just lose all your progress.
It kind of just feels like a board game with some many things happening at once in such a small amount of time.
I for one wish it would go further. Despite being in Austin, I often can't watch the Astros - as if I'm going to drive a six hour round trip to go to every game otherwise - without subscribing to some channel which is inevitably only available with companies I don't want to do business with. I'd happily pay ~300/yr for a streaming subscription that gets me all those games though...
Baseball's biggest issue is that their biggest teams are also co-owners of their cable channels (and were trailblazers in this, with the Yankees and the YES Network). They don't care if you go to the game, they want you to get a cable subscription that has your local RSN, ESPN, TBS, your local FOX affiliate, and FS1 so that you can watch your team play. And that's not including games that may wind up on streaming platforms.
The post you replied to included this:
> I read that part of baseball's decline from the premiere American sport was due to its outdated revenue model (strict reliance on ticket sales). The NFL in 80s really embraced TV and reached more fans and here we are. MLB has been recently way ahead of the curve on streaming (MLB.tv, AWS StatCast etc).
I'm _hoping_ (although numbers don't seem to be showing it as a huge success as of yet) is that the Apple-MLS deal works well enough that other leagues are at least open to the idea of a no-blackout, all-inclusive package.
I hate the AppleTV thing for baseball. I pay for the MLB.TV package yet those games aren't included unless I also buy an AppleTV subscription.
College football is going the same way with ESPN and FOX properties on cable/streaming but also needing Peacock, Paramount+ and I think AppleTV next season.
For MLS the deal has been pretty good I think. Mainly because everything is all in one place.
The MLB package is very up-front about not being all-inclusive: it advertises "out-of-market" games -- games you can't otherwise access. Games on streaming services like Apple and Peacock count the same as broadcasts on ESPN, FS1, or TBS: national broadcasts available behind a paywall.
That's my biggest complaint as well. The MLB streaming service needs to have an everything tier. I understand that teams want to sell rights locally, but figure it out. Charge me whatever you need to charge me and share the revenue with the local team. Just make it easy for me to watch!
I too live in Austin and I watched more Toronto Blue Jays, SF Giants, and LA Dodgers games than Rangers games this year.
Charge me some portion of the carriage fee and show me the local ads rather than the generic highlights between innings. Just let me watch the local team.
The problem with showing the local ads is that they sometimes only pay for rights for a certain region. If they hire musicians for the jingle and the audience is only NYC, then the fee would generally be less than if it were for a global audience.
I think that's why they show all the baseball zen stuff rather than ads for whatever feed they are broadcasting.
My preference would be for them to pull back to a whole-stadium view and just let the ballpark sounds play. The stuff the MLB inserts is all pretty bad.
Yeah the out-of-market-only rules of the national sports subscriptions is really goofy. I guess they’re trying to protect the Comcasts of the world who own a lot of those regional sports networks where the baseball games are shown, because they pay a lot for those deals and would probably refuse to pay as much if MLB let MLB.tv have them. But it still sucks.
AFAIK, the MLB.tv subscription includes full audio for every game, including in-market games.
My understanding of the issue is that MLB sold off the TV rights to local games years ago to the RSN (Regional Sports Networks) and the contracts have yet to expire. Rumor has it that around 2028 or so, they will try to rein them back in.
They're already doing so. There are a number of teams (six, eight? something like that) that already have local coverage packages with MLB, and Seattle is joining the crowd next year.
The data shows that the biggest drop was around the 60s. This is probably due to TV. The strike looks like it had some effect and the steroids era not much.
I think baseball needs more national stars. People like Ohtani and Judge, but they are not on the level Ken Griffey, Jr. was in 93-94. None of them reach the level of Mahomes or Manning either.
FWIW I had a similar conundrum with Slack. I had set-up my business Slack workspace in college; 4 years after graduation my university changed policies (they used to forward name@edu => name@alumni.edu).
I tried the normal means (support tickets etc) to no avail. The third or fourth time I got someone in account recovery. There was a very formal process for verifying my identity (I'm sure based on the process this happens all the time). Eventually I they helped me recover my account. It probably took a few months on the whole, but once I got the right support rep it was only a week or so.
So my advice would be to submit more tickets. Because they might have a process that not all support agents know about, and some are more helpful than others.
Safe to assume ejections will fall off dramatically. I remember Lou Pinella being thrown out of Wrigley Field because a runner was called out at 3rd base a few years before challenges. Pinella was wrong and in another world he would have simply challenged the call rather than kicking dirt at the ump. Wilson Contreras got thrown out a few weeks back for theatrics after a ball / strike call.
The last frontier of ejections will probably be discretion when players get plunked at the plate.
Yeah, and I'm an old man, so let me lament how this takes some more fun out of baseball. Those arguments were always a bit of kayfabe, but they were glorious! Who didn't love Earl Weaver kicking dirt on homeplate, or Billy Martin endangering his blood pressure, or Tommy Lasorda turning himself into a tomato? Bleah.
Granted, I didnt grow up a baseball fan and am only now getting into through my kids being in baseball, but coming from less "traditional" sports like basketball I really dont care for the whole spectacle side of baseball. Even in little league you get way more arguing with umpires from coaches and parents alike and its all so juvenile.
Right there with you. The faux drama (soccer/football "flops", F1 drivers complaining of 'dangerous' actions of everyone else), of some sports is as bad as the actual theatrics and temper-losings of others. Takes away from the playing, for me.
I'm right there with you on any kind of argument or hostility in youth (or adult rec-league - I can tell you stories about that) sports. It's awful, and out of place.
I guess I reconcile those positions because I follow the "top-flight" sports I enjoy (in part) as long-running, interconnected narratives. Some of that's on the technical level - like, "this guy played this way last time; how will he approach a similar situation this time" - but it also embraces the personalities involved. The three managers I mentioned were outsized characters in the baseball "story", and I enjoyed their roles - as did they. Each was well aware of the theatricality of their actions, as were the umpires, and there were very few genuine hard feelings.
Earl Weaver, in particular, sometimes ran onto the field bellowing something like "that was a good call! But you gotta run [eject] me here, 'cause I need get them [players / fans] into the game" (though doubtless with more profanity than is appropriate for this forum). Then he and the umpire would yell at each other for a bit, until he departed in (mock) high dudgeon. That was kayfabe, but not purely for the sake of spectacle. He believed - and there's research since that backs up his intuition - that getting his team and fans fired up would be a strategic advantage.
None of that applies / should apply to amateur competitions. I also respect your point of view if you don't watch professional sports from same the angle that I do.
Yeah Im fine with the kayfabe angle. Its more what the current state of the game has become because of the fallibility of the umpire, but at the same time the absolute infallibility of them as well.
I dont think baseball does a good job of being honest about umpires blowing calls, and to fight the perception of being wrong umpires lean _way_ to the other side to the point that if a batter is even suspected of questioning a call they are ejected. Then, sure, I dont see a problem with the arguing because what else can you do. Its a tight rope, and I dont think they've walked it well. It does feed into the lower leagues though, with completely different relationships (volunteer umps and no replay review), but the same antics.
I agree with all of that. Thing is that I think baseball could have fixed all of this by breaking the MLB umpires union. It's not that I'm anti-union - far, far from it - it's that it should be the professional baseball umpires union, and cover minor league officials, too. At that point you could demote the worst of the MLB umpires (we all know who they are) and replace them by promoting people who are better.
Instead of doing the hard right thing, baseball does something easier that will be worse for the game. Faugh.
I think that’s a pretty unsympathetic take. Hindsight is 2020 but there are factors outside the author’s control (synced MFA, Gmail not detecting the spoofed address)
Cloud sync is not out of one's control, and complaining that Gmail did not automatically detect the spoofed address is an inversion of assumption. It's like dropping your icecream and then being mad nobody caught it for you.
Is the average user (someone who "works in tech" even!) really so uninvolved in their own security? Are they not expected to hold any responsibility whatsoever?
> The closest thing the federal government has to a department of water infrastructure, the Bureau of Reclamation, has an annual budget of just $1.1 billion.
One of my favorite books is Cadillac Desert. It's about the damming of the US rivers, the water crisis, and the history of the Bureau.
It may be dwarfed by the other departments, but its had a massive impact on US population development especially in LA.
> From 1902 to 1905, Eaton, Mulholland, and others engaged in underhanded methods to ensure that Los Angeles would gain the water rights in the Owens Valley, blocking the Bureau of Reclamation from building water infrastructure for the residents in Owens Valley.[12]: 48–69 [16]: 62–69 While Eaton engaged in most of the political maneuverings and chicanery,[16]: 62 Mulholland misled Los Angeles public opinion by dramatically understating the amount of water then available for Los Angeles' growth.[16]: 73 Mulholland also misled residents of the Owens Valley; he indicated that Los Angeles would only use unused flows in the Owens Valley, while planning on using the full water rights to fill the aquifer of the San Fernando Valley. [0]
For many years, they piped the entirety of the Owens River to LA, over a hundred miles away and over a mountain range. It is wild that the follies of Los Angeles water management has led to permanent scars in the east side of California from Mono Lake to the Salton Sea disaster.
Please port to linux soon (sure it's relatively trivial on Electron :)).
Like the idea of the IDE. Seems like it'd make it easy to prototype and launch quickly.
RE: embrace the suck, yeah I'm with you. I prefer the brittleness of scripts to non-deterministic (potentially unhinged) workflows
reply