> Is your chat app asynchronous? As in sending a public message for an offline user?
Ah, so DieWithMe is an interesting, but different concept.
With Bored Chat, it's simply a chat app where you interact via an iMessage like UI. The difference is that all your chat logs (your chat history) are viewable to the world on your profile page...and on a main "activity" feed.
So Bored Chat is basically chat, but with no privacy whatsoever!
We've probably hindered it multiple times in the past. We weren't the only apes to master tool making, we were just really good at it and out competed others that tried filling the same niche.
FWIW You may be interested in an app I'm building which allows people who work remotely (or in remote places) to socialize with other people who work remotely. The idea is to allow people such as yourself who are interested in tech to have "water cooler"-style conversations even if they are removed from the tech scene.
You might find some interesting people on there to talk to, it's still early days and currently only my friends are using it so far, but we're a friendly, interesting bunch of people :)
I'm not sure of the "swipe" idea translates well to professional networking.
"Swipe" seems more suited to making visceral fast (~1 second) decisions based on gut instinct, whereas networking requires >20 seconds when face-to-face and longer in a lower bandwidth environment such as an app.
Additionally when using the app it felt like I was "discarding" someone as I swiped them, which is not the right feeling.
The bigger problem with networking, I find, is breaking the ice. I'd pay good money to be able to intro myself to someone without resorting to a "networking hack".
No disagreement on the swipe - we're playing around with a several other UX mechanisms that might be better suited for higher time/consideration per person, would love to get your feedback on it when new UX's release.
In professional networking, both discovering mutually benefitual relationships and ice breaking are big problems. We're currently largely focused on the former, but hope to tackle the latter as well.
If we think that temperature is a measure of how much the atoms move around then it is not possible to have less than zero movement.
But if we think temperature as related to the ratio of how much a system's entropy changes when a certain amount of energy is added (or removed) to the system [1],
1/T = dS/dq
then it's possible to construct systems with a negative T.
If I understand correctly, it's like saying a car has negative speed because it's going backwards. If you accelerate it forwards you actually reduce its speed towards 0, but that does not mean that the car is more immobile at -5km/h than at 0km/h.
It's just a matter of convention, a negative temperature just means that the temperature gets closer to 0 as you add energy. Did I get that correctly?
Negative temperature actually has some nuance to it. By the relation 1/T = dS/dq where T is temperature, S is entropy and q is heat added to the system, a negative temperature means that entropy decreases when you add heat to the system and increases when it emits heat. By the second law, entropy always goes up, so a negative temperature object will always emit heat. In that way, something with a negative temperature is extremely hot.
> If I understand correctly, it's like saying a car has negative speed because it's going backwards.
Well, kind of, but I think that would be an oversimplification.
Negative temperatures have a concrete physical meaning, being "hotter than infinity", in the sense that if we bring in contact 2 systems: one with an arbitrarily high positive temperature, and one with a negative temperature, energy (heat) will flow from the negative system to the positive.
This looks tidier if we use the thermodynamic beta (beta = 1/T) instead of temperature. Then we can say that heat always flows from a system with a smaller beta to systems with a larger beta.
Maybe debt is a somewhat useful metaphor here. If someone has a debt of 5 apples, in some ways if makes sense to say that this person owns -5 apples. But in some other ways it makes no sense: a person with 5 apples can eat them to get less hungry. A person with -5 apples cannot eat them to get more hungry.
This is a step in the right direction. I strongly believe that marijuana legalization is good for the economy -- personally I've come up with brilliant, practical ideas while stoned[0]. Many of which I have gone on to implement and generate wealth. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Think Steve Jobs and Apple etc.
[0] I hope the nomenclature evolves re marijuana. "stoned", "bong", "skunk", "chronic", etc conjure up images that are too tightly aligned with negative stereotypes IMO.
Ah, so DieWithMe is an interesting, but different concept.
With Bored Chat, it's simply a chat app where you interact via an iMessage like UI. The difference is that all your chat logs (your chat history) are viewable to the world on your profile page...and on a main "activity" feed.
So Bored Chat is basically chat, but with no privacy whatsoever!