Where have you ever seen it to refer to the entire state, or as anything other than a derogatory term for the people who don't live in the Philly or Pittsburgh metro areas?
Edit: you aren't being badgered, you made something up and refuse to acknowledge that for whatever reason.
What do you mean? You don't think that every software developer on earth secretly aspires to spend their days making tiny improvements to an advertising machine?
As a counter to my skeptical comments elsewhere, one way this could be a more useful service is if you go poll well known social media sites and see what the handle is associated with.
If the handle is taken by what seems like the same content/brand owner across FB, IG, reddit, X, etc. then that could add weight to a decision to reserve it (and be provided as useful context to your user as to why you recommend it be reserved), and if it's associated with something like hate speech or just crappy content someone who is doing brand research can know to look for alternatives.
YOU NAILED IT! That's part of what I want to explore next too. One of the other common thing I've heard is to check other social media platforms to check if a username is reserved. But, namevine.com already did that. Maybe it doesn't do it as accurately anymore. Almost all platforms are super protective of their API usage in that way. In any case, that's definitely the next challenge to solve for.
Why would I want billgates to be reserved in the first place, unless I'm Microsoft?
And the definition of a "public figure" is absurdly broad and inconsistent. Some very common names are flagged as reserved for what are extremely minor celebrities at best (like an assistant coach of a college basketball team, or a actor with barely any formal credits as examples, and some other obscure athletes are marked as reserved while others are not).
Well, to clarify, this API is really for folks who're building platforms that require usernames. For ex: imagine if you were building the next Twitter or anything that requires usernames. There, you'd want to know what's happening with these kinds of usernames, where, people are now prepared to pay for too (premium usernames). Similarly, for cases where the names are offensive or profane, you may want to block outright.
As for definition of specific categories (more specifically public figures), you're right. Currently, it's just me building this and so I had to decide where to draw the line. I just drew it around the entire earth which I know is NOT the best appraoch but that's the one I went with just to ensure I cover all bases. Honestly, the API would tell if and why a username could be deemed reserved/premium. What to do with this info is really up to the platforms that are consuming it. They could let it slide, do nothing, just flag and monitor, block etc.
Yes, a classifier based on similarity metrics would be more useful than whatever is going on behind the scenes here, which seems to be completely based on string matching and a not very creative dictionary of offensive terms.
Interesting! Didn't think about it that way. Currently, it's a super dumb system. There's a list of ~1.7 million records and the API simply looks-up against that. Super lazy approach. Was avoid running an API across OpenAI or other model but didn't think about hosting a classifier/LLM myself. Might consider it in the future.
Full disclosure: I'm not a developer. I understand tech architectures well. Can code (have coded in JS pre-AI too) BUT will figure this out as I go along. Thanks and truly appreciate the input.
Fair. I suppose most newer platforms may not think too much about it. So here's the pitch though: Imagine you're building the next Twitter (or, you know the platform has the potential to become the next Twitter). Knowing what we know now about social media platforms, where, users are open to paying for premium usernames (ex: @apple, @cocacola, @media etc.), it would be nice to at least flag/know if there are folks trying to reserve with these usernames. You could decide later / async what to do about it but you'll at least have a way to flag. Similarly, you can also avoid profanity or abusive words from seeping in the platform also. You may want to restrict/block 'em outright.
As for bugs: what I see happening now is folks either have a static list (which is already bad; not a bug) or have pattern-matching to avoid these (which isn't full proof). Regex/pattern matching can only help in cases where we have "real" or "try" or "something" as a pre/postfix. More complex cases but don't really identify a wide range of premium / reserved names. IMO, for this, we will need a dictionary of sorts, which is what I'm hoping to achieve with this API.
It's a giant manual list. I'm a human maintaining it. Just need to do better in terms of the API / deliverability side of things.
> Fair. I suppose most newer platforms may not think too much about it. So here's the pitch though: Imagine you're building the next Twitter (or, you know the platform has the potential to become the next Twitter). Knowing what we know now about social media platforms, where, users are open to paying for premium usernames (ex: @apple, @cocacola, @media etc.), it would be nice to at least flag/know if there are folks trying to reserve with these usernames. You could decide later / async what to do about it but you'll at least have a way to flag. Similarly, you can also avoid profanity or abusive words from seeping in the platform also. You may want to restrict/block 'em outright.
How many people are trying to build the next twitter? I would guess it's approximately zero, so I think you'll need a wider target audience to generate meaningful revenue.
It's much easier for the next twitter to just institute a policy that says handles can be modified by the platform as needed and deal with the "problem" post hoc.
> As for bugs: what I see happening now is folks either have a static list (which is already bad; not a bug) or have pattern-matching to avoid these (which isn't full proof). Regex/pattern matching can only help in cases where we have "real" or "try" or "something" as a pre/postfix. More complex cases but don't really identify a wide range of premium / reserved names. IMO, for this, we will need a dictionary of sorts, which is what I'm hoping to achieve with this API.
Based on what you've said, you're also using a static list, correct?
Long term, I suppose the actual value proposition is not that using a list is a bug, but you have the "best" list due to your scale and people can outsource managing their own version?
To me, the issue is that this isn't a solvable problem using your current approach because people are more creative than a list of banned strings and you're severely outnumbered at scale.
Right on all counts. Twitter is a rather simplified example. I see it as something that literally every platform can use. Say, ProductHunt, other platforms that offer product launches, link-in-bio tools etc. etc. I'm a bit bullish around the market because, regardless of me knowing all of 'em, the challenge of using usernames exists in general.
On the static list, yes. Me too. But I keep updating mine as well. For ex: on day 1, "apple" was just a dictionary word. On day 2, it was also classified as a brand. Also, every quarter, half-yearly or yearly, there are newer companies, public figures whose usernames keep getting to be significant. Currently, though manually, I intend to maintain this list for the long run.
As for a better, permanent solution, on another comment, I came across using an LLM/classifer for this (based on my understanding, that's not just asking OpenAI but building an LLM of my own) where I have the "best" source of truth and the LLM handles all variations. I think it actually is solvable to an extent now. Though, I'm not sure what the final solution looks. I WILL SOLVE THIS THOUGH :D
I could see social-media-ish websites not wanting those names to prevent impersonation. They'd be deciding if they want to risk friction when a big name joins the platform (@cocacola needs Coca-Cola to verify) or risk threats from that big names' legal department (when @cocacola gets registered by someone who just posts furry porn of their mascot bear). It could just set a flag to require the account to verify or be renamed.
I get the argument in theory, but then I'll just register coca-cola (which is available), cocacola_furry (which is available), C0CAC0LA (which is available), etc.
You're signing up to play a game you can't win preemptively IMO.
As an aside, cocacola is also "available", despite being listed as an example of what you don't want to allow on the homepage and presumably would be flagged as a reserved brand name handle by this service.
You're right about the variations there. I did think about it but decided NOT to add that in this version (felt like over-complicating the process), which I've now come to understand IS a required criteria. Will work on improving this.
As for @cocacola — that's on me. I've not yet gotten to the bottom half of the list of categories here: https://docs.username.dev/reference/categories (need to work on "government" and below). "company" is listed there and I suspect "cocacola" should be covered there.
In hindsight, I should've reserved names that I'm showing in the flipping text of the hero title but I didn't want to game the system or make it seem more reliant than it currently is. Which, again, I'm learning is not so reliant to begin with anyway.
PS. Love the passion around the topic here. One thing that I'm happy about is getting the problem validated. It's not in my head, I'm not the only one experiencing it, this is real. AND I WILL SOLVE IT :)
Businesses have no issue with their suppliers making reasonable margins as long as the value offered is acceptable or better.
I'd rather know a supplier is healthy than scraping by. I just got an email from one of mine saying that they aren't doing great, so please buy as much as possible before the holidays? I'm now making sure I'm not overly dependent on them for anything, which I'd rather not spend time doing if I didn't need to.
Fellow small business owner here. Just as a reminder, discussing any successful (where successful is defined as not failed) business is a lesson in survivorship bias.
Most businesses of all sizes, shapes, and forms fail within 10 years.
That a majority of businesses fail over a given duration of time. It’s probably true on a long-enough timescale, but the idea that the majority of businesses fail within one year or ten just seems completely dubious. How is a business defined? How is failure defined?
Ignoring the available data indicating that it is the case, I'm curious about why this seems dubious to you in the first place?
Starting and maintaining a functioning business is difficult; the default outcome is failure (the end of the business as an operating entity) and you have to work to prevent that from happening every day that you want to remain open.
And I've never seen a claim that the majority of businesses fail in a year. Most anecdotes say a majority fail within 5 years, which seems to be approximately correct based on US data.
No OP. But if it’s similar to what I believe in, it’s free-market capitalism for business (with provisions for market failure, e.g. antitrust and utility regulation), redistribution of wealth for individuals, strong individual investor and consumer rights, and the state providing the bare basics through the market (housing voucher, food voucher, public education or an education voucher, electricity voucher, water voucher, internet voucher, and public healthcare).
> a regulated free market in parallel with a highly regulated UBI?
No UBI. Just basics for survival guaranteed. You should not starve if you can't find work. That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure. (Which, in our current model, occurs at both ends of the income spectrum.)
That's why I called it a "highly regulated UBI", which might not have been clear. You're proposing that all citizens receive the basics for survival in kind instead of the cash equivalent (which is how a UBI would work).
I think I prefer this model over what the OP ended up suggesting, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be in practice in the US.
> That doesn't mean we can support a non-working population at leisure.
Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system?
> Aren't the people who choose to live at a basic survival level living a life at leisure in your system?
I suppose so, given they’re subsisting. It should not luxurious, however, and would probably carry with it a modicum of indignity. (Which is fine as long as they aren’t discriminated against.)
And for who's done it, basically every capitalist nation at this point.
Simply put it's recognizing that capitalism has failings but so does communism. It doesn't seek full state control of everything, just over industries where it's needed. It tries to strike a balance between public and private ownership.
Everything from Vietnam to the US have aspects of market socialism. I think that there are more industries where the US should take ownership, particularly industries that lend themselves to natural monopolies or oligopolies.
Thanks for the reply. I agree that regulating capitalism is necessary, but I also think the "where it's needed" portion of your thesis is a real sticking point.
I would be interested to know what industries you have in mind where the US should take ownership, and in what form.
- Railroads - The lines themselves and the operation should be owned by the federal government. Private rail companies should buy access which pays for line expansion and maintenance. The US needs regulations on things like train length and line speeds (none of these super massive trains blocking roadways because they don't fit inside a rail yard).
- Medicine - Medicare for all, but honestly I think nationalizing major hospitals and pharmaceuticals would probably be warranted. It's in the national interest to fund a wide breadth of research and medicine production even if that medicine doesn't ultimately turn a profit. But even if we just did insurance, the US is already covering the most expensive pool of individuals with Medicare (old people) expanding it to all citizens wouldn't be that expensive. Reform to medicare would help (particularly removing Part C, that's just a slush fund for insurance companies, but then also expanding and simplifying the other parts).
Utilities ownership - Doesn't need to be nationalized, but having municipal or state ran utilities would, IMO, be preferable. The state utilities boards suck and putting in checks for utility companies. They aren't elected and are easy to corrupt. For example, my water utility was recently purchased by a company. In order to cover the loan they took out to purchase the previous water company, they raised rates (fat chance those go down). For telecommunications, I think a British telecom style system would work well. The government owns the lines while various telecommunication companies compete for service. That'd make it easier for more than just 2 companies providing internet service to a given location. Cellular networks practically already work like this, the big 3 own everything and sub-carriers just lease access. It'd be better if the government nationally owned cell service deployment. Especially in terms of spectrum usage.
- Food production - I don't really think government ownership is needed here, I think anti-trust and breakups are needed. These markets have consolidated to a huge extent which is really bad for everyone. Having just ~5 different national grocers is a bad thing. Having just a few mills (like general mills) is a bad thing.
- Chip fabrication - This should be owned by the government much like TSMC. And like TSMC, the likes of nvidia/intel/amd can buy a fab to do their runs. Fabs are just too crazy expensive and losing the competitive edge here is a security problem.
Basically, my view centers mostly around when an industry gets too consolidated. Especially when I think it's something that has critical importance to the general public. I could be open to more of these sorts of actions, it just depends on if an industry can be naturally competitive or not. Like, for example, I think a nationalized shoe manufacturing is a dumb idea as it's already a highly competitive market that could be easily broken up.
There are many ways to obtain such an edge, and the casinos are highly motivated to prevent that from happening.
reply