Telegram chat program - and so much more
-
@johnhooks said:
It's at google.com/voice. Sign in and click get a voice number.
Yes, that's the page that tells me I can't get it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
It's at google.com/voice. Sign in and click get a voice number.
Yes, that's the page that tells me I can't get it.
Ya since you aren't in the US. But I was saying if you are that's how you get it.
One other way to look at it is, the phone number is the only piece of info they have on you.
Email is just as throw away as a phone number. If I don't pay for my domain, someome else can buy it and use the same address I've been using.
-
@johnhooks said:
Email is just as throw away as a phone number. If I don't pay for my domain, someome else can buy it and use the same address I've been using.
But there are many global free email services and buying a domain is cheap and can service a family, village, country, etc.
Phone numbers are not cheap and orders of magnitude more throwaway. There is no free for life phone service outside of one I've never seen work and is, at best, US only where the issue is trivial compared to the rest of the world. It's an American-ism to think of phone numbers as being tied to people long term. Much of the world does not see them that way.
-
@johnhooks said:
If I don't pay for my domain, someome else can buy it and use the same address I've been using.
But if we use Google as the example... the only service that makes phone numbers viable is US only and from the same vendor all the same protection is available for email, but globally.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But if we use Google as the example... the only service that makes phone numbers viable is US only and from the same vendor all the same protection is available for email, but globally.
But now you have the same problem you stated here:
That's not "bad", but also means we just reverted to a Google central system
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But if we use Google as the example... the only service that makes phone numbers viable is US only and from the same vendor all the same protection is available for email, but globally.
But now you have the same problem you stated here:
That's not "bad", but also means we just reverted to a Google central system
I agree, my point was that if Google Voice was the only solution to the phone number problem, it means email is the better choice based on the Google offerings alone. That anyone else offers email makes it that much more robust. My point was only that using Google as the reason that phone numbers were viable meant that phone numbers were even less viable than originally thought.
-
This definitely should've been web based, classic applications are fast approaching Egyptian artefact status.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
This definitely should've been web based, classic applications are fast approaching Egyptian artefact status.
It is!! There is a web option too, I'm just not using it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
This definitely should've been web based, classic applications are fast approaching Egyptian artefact status.
It is!! There is a web option too, I'm just not using it.
I partially withdraw my criticism and add that nothing should be non-web based or have classic interfaces. You gotta be stubborn about something, I'm choosing this.
-
It has a generic web client and one for Chrome that supposedly integrates better for ChromeOS users.
-
Anyone with a Chromebook handy to test how it works there?
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@tonyshowoff said:
This definitely should've been web based, classic applications are fast approaching Egyptian artefact status.
It is!! There is a web option too, I'm just not using it.
I partially withdraw my criticism and add that nothing should be non-web based or have classic interfaces. You gotta be stubborn about something, I'm choosing this.
It has a Linux-CLI interface, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Anyone with a Chromebook handy to test how it works there?
The Chrome app works well, but I haven't tried the web interface.
-
Haha, anyone noticed how quiet it is in here since everyone is on Telegram?
-
@johnhooks said:
Haha, anyone noticed how quiet it is in here since everyone is on Telegram?
Yeah, that's a concern. It can rapidly do real damage the community in many says having a channel like this. It is the same as having a private group with is downright evil. And it puts the technical knowledge where it can't be seen. It's generally bad all around.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Haha, anyone noticed how quiet it is in here since everyone is on Telegram?
Yeah, that's a concern. It can rapidly do real damage the community in many says having a channel like this. It is the same as having a private group with is downright evil. And it puts the technical knowledge where it can't be seen. It's generally bad all around.
Ya the private chat replacement for on here is good, but the community replacement isn't.
It's nice because you can have attachments with your personal chats, and a longer history.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Haha, anyone noticed how quiet it is in here since everyone is on Telegram?
Yeah, that's a concern. It can rapidly do real damage the community in many says having a channel like this. It is the same as having a private group with is downright evil. And it puts the technical knowledge where it can't be seen. It's generally bad all around.
Ya the private chat replacement for on here is good, but the community replacement isn't.
It's nice because you can have attachments with your personal chats, and a longer history.
Yeah, we need to intentionally limit the use of the chat as much as possible. It's very distracting, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yeah, we need to intentionally limit the use of the chat as much as possible. It's very distracting, too.
Jeeze, definitely, some guy with glasses and a smug look keeps messaging me
-
i agree that questions and such need to be here, but there's a lot of just chatter that is better served on the chat channel, written one and forgotten.. but it's a fine line that's for sure.
-
