MatekCopatek

Absolutely nothing, if it fits your usecase, but how do you handle e.g. reusing the same skill in multiple repos?

Are you manually keeping all copies in sync?

This might be a cynical take, but I doubt Ticketmaster (and most of these other examples) are motivated by doing the most good. Their underlying principle is extracting the most value for shareholders at any cost.

Some people argue even that behavior ends up producing the most good, but I cannot accept that level of mental gymnastics.

While I agree with the general sentiment, the problem here isn't developers not being familiar with statistics, it's the simple fact all of this is profit driven most of the time.

I tried to purchase tickets for an event last week. I had to go through Ticketmaster as it was the only official way. They forced me to verify my account using a phone number, but whoever they were using for messages wasn't able to deliver a code to my number. I tried a few numbers from our household and they all failed.

Searching for this issue yielded a bunch of results, so it was definitely a known issue, but there wasn't anything I could do, really. To them, it's simple math. Another SMS provider that covers my (tiny EU) country might be more expensive. They might be avoiding scammers that used my mobile operator in the past. Whatever it is, it would probably cost them more than they lose in ticket sales.

Without some government entity to force them, they don't give a shit about me being able to see an event.

Hey HN, we're building a tool aimed at organizations who use a lot of different AI assets (skills, tools, rules, agent definitions etc.) and find it hard to manage them consistently.

If anyone is willing to give us a bit of feedback, I guess we'd mostly like to hear if the issues this blog post opens with are even a problem for you and if yes, how are you currently solving it.

Asking myself the same. It looks like it's advertising OpenServ, but we could use more information.

This is absolutely true, but IMO also a much smaller problem than some people are making it out to be.

Without any special car-charging equipment, just with a regular outlet, I'm able to get over 100 miles of range every night (charging only from 11pm to 7am).

This is enough for a pretty long daily commute and it doesn't block car use during normal hours.

Big disclaimer - I'm from Europe, which helps my case because of shorter commutes and faster home charging with 220 volts.

But at the end of the day I think the solution lies in equipping all parking spaces at home and at work with power outlets. DCFC is definitely needed, but should be viewed as a solution for exceptional cases (i.e. roadtrip that exceeds your range), not a gas station for EVs.

Yes, sure, but that worry can be extended to all jobs lost to AI and after that all jobs lost to any kind of technical advancements.

So far the answer of the current economic system has been to invent new products/services and redirect the workforce there. It's been working so far, but isn't without issues - ever-increasing consumption is bad for the environment; the jobs are getting more and more pointless; people wonder why automation doesn't result in shorter working hours for everyone.

From my perspective, this is a slightly naive opinion. I believe we're not fighting against GMOs because "mutations are bad". When activists point that out, it's because it's the easiest way to reach the general population and convince them to get behind the cause.

The real reason, however, are the political and economical implications of GMOs. Sure, they say they'll use them to fight famine. But in reality, they'll just try to extract as much profit as they can, regardless of the interests of the people growing the plants and eating the food. We've seen farmers get sued (see Bowman v Monsanto) and other evil stuff like that.

It's hard to read this without being cynical.

How seriously would you take a proposal on car pollution regulation and traffic law updates written by Volkswagen?

It's a supply-demand gap, but since the reasons for it are very apparent, it's completely reasonable to describe it as "consumers paying for [the existence of] datacenters".

You can design a racist propaganda poster, put someone's face onto a porn pic or manipulate evidence with photoshop. Apart from super specific things like trying to print money, the tool doesn't stop you from doing things most people would consider distasteful, creepy or even illegal.

So why are we doing this now? Has anything changed fundamentally? Why can't we let software do everything and then blame the user for doing bad things?

Great examples!

Polluting vs. not polluting sounds super straightforward, but then you look outside and we often pollute rivers, so it's clearly not that simple.

Personally, I'm fully with you on not polluting. But that immediately puts us in an ideological position - we value preserving the environment and staying healthy.

A neo-liberal might come along and say we're wasting economic potential. Keeping the river clean means not building a factory near it. If the products from that factory and the jobs it provides offset the negative effects, they'll argue we _should_ pollute the river.

Same with taxing sugary drinks - uncertain results aren't the issue. The issue is we have different opinions on how much a government should be able to regulate certain aspects of life in the pursuit of improving public health.

Even if you have reliable statistical data from countries that implemented such a policy, some people will argue their freedom to drink whatever they want is what's important here and your bean-counting of medical expenses is completely missing the point.

I can agree with parts of this article, but I believe it's missing a large part of the puzzle.

The author implicitly assumes that the constraints of our society are fixed and that it's therefore possible to determine which political systems are objectively better or worse. We should be doing that research (like astronomers trying to determine how the universe works) instead of religiously supporting ideological positions.

I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. I think we behave the way we do in large part due to the ideological principles we were raised with. This can be confirmed by observing various closed-off societies sometimes operating on principles that seem completely bonkers to most of us.

If you teach people capitalism/socialism, you build a capitalistic/socialistic system. It's impossible to live inside that system and objectively determine whether it's good or bad, let alone better or worse than other systems.

So in that context, I believe following an ideology is _not_ the opposite of thinking for yourself, as the author puts it. It is a conscious decision based on morality. You decide what your values are and you find a political option that aligns with them.

To be clear, that's still a very imperfect decision to make, many things can go wrong from that point on and I believe this is where the author is correct in many ways. We should reason about it constantly to make sure we're actually doing what we want to be doing and not just blindly repeating things.

This only works for tasks where the details of execution are not important. Driving fits that category well, but many other tasks we're throwing at AI don't.

Why are we comparing LLMs to media? I think media has much more freedom in a creative sense, its end goal is often very open-ended, especially when it's used for artistic purposes.

When it comes to AI, we're trying to replace existing technology with it. We want it to drive a car, write an email, fix a bug etc. That premise is what gives it economic value, since we have a bunch of cars/emails/bugs that need driving/writing/fixing.

Sure, it's interesting to think about other things it could potentially achieve when we think out of the box and find use cases that fit it more, but the "old things" we need to do won't magically go away. So I think we should be careful about such overgeneralizations, especially when they're covertly used to hype the technology and maintain investments.

TIL! Thanks, was not aware of that.

It's gmail in the sense that they deliver you+[whatever]@gmail.com to you@gmail.com

By default it's just a valid character.

They don't want to "go green", they want to maximize profits, as any other corporation. They just need to have a good enough reputation to make sure environmentally-conscious people don't boycott their products. Anything more than that would have a negative effect on their bottom line, so you can be sure they're not going to do it.

Small companies like Framework and Fairphone proved that you can make very repairable and reusable laptops and phones without sacrificing much in the way of form factor (since this used to be the biggest excuse). I think it's safe to say big manufacturers won't follow suit unless forced by legislation.

The most obvious reason for me would be running something other than Node on the backend, i.e. only using Svelte for the frontend.

I didn't know about Bitwarden Send, thanks! Although I did just check it out and it says the limit is 100 MB, which is typically too little.

EDIT: I'm on mobile, apparently it's 500 MB on desktop.

Puter is free forever for developers! Puter introduces a groundbreaking approach to infrastructure costs, called the "User Pays" model.

And how much does the user pay?

Really?? Why? I'm a long time Vue user and the new API feels like the exact same thing, just more flexible and easier to reuse.

If I'm not mistaken, Brave is based on Chromium, so it's likely that they'll be subject to the same changes.

Judging by the parent comment, the dark part is the fact that it might be fake pressure. As in - it's true that it will arrive tomorrow if you order within the next 2 hrs, but it will actually arrive tomorrow even if you take 4 hrs.

It's a bit selfish, but this kind of behavior motivates me against recommending good things to my peers. Whenever I like something a lot, I'm now afraid of sharing it, because the sooner it becomes successful, the sooner it will enter the enshittification phase and become worse.

The cookie consent window is just a lazy way of how most developers decided to handle the regulation.

This might vary from country to country, depending on how exactly each EU member implemented it, but where I live, you didn't have to ask permission for cookies related to core functionality (e.g. basket state in a webshop). IIRC you were even able to get away with light tracking, if it supported your main usecase (e.g. counting product views to generate a list of most viewed products) and didn't expose the data to a 3rd party service.

But yeah, it's much easier to keep sending all the user data to Google Analytics and complain about the EU forcing you into spammy cookie consent windows then it is to understand what the legislation is trying to achieve and reduce the amount of data you're collecting.

For someone not from the USA, what's a culture war movie? Are you talking about America being the good guy in all the movies? Or the thing where there are more black and gay characters now and conservative people don't like it?

More importantly though - why would AI change the prevalent ideology in movies? Won't the same people who already make movies keep making them, just using AI?

As someone who started using Vue before 1.0, I find that characterization unfair. The overall API didn't change much from 1 to 2.

3 was initially going to be a big change, but after a lot of community resistance, they decided to make the reworked API entirely optional so people wouldn't be forced to make changes. AFAIK this is still the case and the classic variant (Options API) is still fully supported.

What? Are we thinking of the same sideloading? You literally download an app (.apk) like any other file and then open it to start the installation.

OK, and the first time you do it, you get a warning and you have to enable loading apps from 3rd party sources.

The average consumer lacks the knowledge and skill to objectively assess the quality of a knife, the seller is aware of that and manipulates them through advertising.

Is a democratic election free if everyone voted freely, but was under the influence of widespread propaganda?