RHSeeger

Once you’re in Apple universe

And there's your blocker. Being limited to only devices from a single vendor is horrible, and a firm no from a lot of people.

Now we can put on the tinfoil hat and say how this fosters vendor lock

The fact that you call it a tinfoil hat type issue is just insane to me. Literally every person in my household has some apple devices and some other ones (android, windows, etc). And some of them have switched back and forth.

Plus, the "ergonomics" of logging into a website on a random device to check something are awful.

Everything you said is _also_ true if you use a password manager than can interact with the browser (which you're already doing).

Plus, that doesn't have the negatives/limitations of passkeys.

If you store the key in Bitwarden or Keepass, what makes it different from a password?

Is that online activation Steam or is it a third party thing? Steam allows selling games that have external DRM like that. I think they, themselves, don't do it.

That doesn't invalidate your other point.

Can't you download your game off steam and play it forever; and if it can't connect to the service, it will just let you play offline?

Sure, that loses out on the ability to transfer it to a friend, but it's better.

I have no problem with Sony not offering DRM free versions of games that I can still download and play with the store. But if that goes away -> you must give me a path to local ownership.

I worry about shenanigans where you "buy" the game from a shell company and that shell company "folds" and doesn't uphold it's promises. Same is true for a smaller, but not shell, company. If the non-DRM version isn't already created and held in trust, then it's not trustworthy.

Depends on the context, but both.

Literally everything you said is not true for me

- My phone's screen is nowhere near big enough for me to "glance" at it while driving (to see if my turn is coming up, etc)

- I'm not carrying around a tablet with me - my phone fits in my pocket

- Mounting is _not_ a solved problem. It just... isn't. This is a whole topic on it's own, but mounting a phone in a good position, where it will stay without moving/falling/bugging (especially in 100+ degree heat) and not be in the way of _other_ car things is a pain

- I already have physical buttons (that interact with car play, where needed) for all those things in my car

- Interacting with the screen of my phone while driving is 100% not something I'm proficient with; nor would I want to be. It's not designed for interacting with it while not paying attention to it. CarPlay is

If AI generated content cannot be copyrighted, it does not follow at all that they can't infringe copyright; there is no deductive step there that I can think of.

I assume the idea is that the fault/blame lies with the human(s) that caused the AI to generate something that violates copyright. Going back to previous comments, the typewriter that generated a document didn't infringe copyright - the person using it did.

The conversation was

If you have an X that Y

If you have an X, it won't Y

to which you added

Your statement is privileged

The fact that it's privileged to have an X is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion was about whether or not an X will Y. And it started with "If you have an X".

I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do

I don't. And I expect I'm not in the minority here. If you're going to throw rocks, you might want to ponder your own privilege before you start tossing accusations.

And yet it directly speaks to the comment it was replying to. It makes the point that RSUs are generally multi-year; so if you're getting them with _any_ frequency, you never get to the point of "the last RSU vests".

I do not think learning about evolution (and we should credit Wallace too!) had that effect. It created a hierarchy of the fittest, and guess who is at the top? Social Darwinism interpreted it as justifying elaborate hierarchies.

I don't think that's accurate at all. Before Darwin, the thought was "we are special, we were born special, we were CREATED special". Darwin made it clear we weren't created special... we were apes before we were humans. There's nothing _special_ about a human as compared to an ape, other than some time to change.

Nobody has taken me up on this offer, because I think they know that they aren't going to have the extreme discipline to do the hard thing of understanding "someone" else's code and sign their name to it.

That seems lazy to me. "I'm not willing to see if I can do a better job by using this tool, because I don't want to bother analyzing it's work".

There main problem, at least in my experience, is that there's a direct conflict in it

- There are people that work better from home and get more done there

- There are people that work better in the office, with people around them

Regardless of which you pick, you're going to make one of those groups less productive.

I do agree that some people who want one thing but work better with the other. It's on the manager(s) to figure out which works before; for each individual and for the team.

And both of them are wrong, because they _should_ be trying to figure out what works best for the person; not what worked best for _them_ and forcing it on the person.

I understand there are sites for whom this causes problems, but I think these are rare and could be optimized not to do unreasonable things.

There are. They're not. They can't (without significant effort)

I keep my new computer glasses at the computer, and the old ones downstairs for "other" uses. Then I keep my new driving glasses in the car, and the old ones downstairs for "other" uses (tv, etc). Basically, I keep the new ones where it matters and accept that my vision will be mediocre in other cases. And also, I'll see 2 of everything because I have double-vision (corrected with the glasses - but "older" ones don't work very well for it).

battling with AI, trying to get it do what I wanted

I rubber duck with AI a lot, to go over my understand, my plan, etc. I get all the benefits of putting my thoughts to words, plus some feedback.

And sometimes, I let the AI write the code, too. It really depends on if I feel it understands the problem and solution well enough. And it's entirely possible that the answer is no, even if it helped me come up with the solution. But I always review the entire plan it puts forward and review the code it wrote. [1]

I don't "battle" with it, unless I'm experimenting with letting it do ALL The coding. And I've done that. And it sucks. It's downright painful. I don't do that for work.

[1] Unless it's a simple utility I'm doing for myself, like "write me a bookmarklet to find all the code in this page and open up a dialog with it formatted easy to read". Because, if it turns out it got that wrong, I can just change it later; it's for me anyways.

The courts are either ignoring the problem, supporting the problem, or just being ignored. They courts themselves have no power to enforce their rulings. The ones that would enforce the courts decisions are doing what the Trump tells them to.

Skipping code reviews and the bugs it causes can be a problem, or it can be easily solvable later when the bugs are found. It varies a lot.

Skipping code reviews and the poor code that can happen because nobody took a second look - that's more of a problem. Because 6-12 months down the line, there's not a few bugs that need to be fixed. Instead, there's a horrible code base that causes all _future_ development to be a lot slower.

It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons

It's impossible. No matter how good of a job you do, there will _always_ be people out to watch it all burn.

Only, we've seen

- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society

- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)

- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.

This seems like a poor example, because we _also_ made it illegal for minors to buy (and smoke?) cigarettes.

Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate

It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).

So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.

And, honestly, if they came out with a statement that said (effectively), "Look, we're losing money here... we just _can't_ support free going forward. Here's our plan" that would be understandable. Sometimes you have a plan/goal, and you realize later that you were wrong and things need to change. But that's not what they did.

I find this comment mind-boggling; in an honest confusion, not insulting way. I use Claude Code (and desktop) on a daily basis; but I can't even imagine doing anything complex without being able to see the code.

I remember playing this in college. Such good times.

Right? "We don't regret that we did this, just that people are mad about it"

The folks I work with rave about how well the LLMS work with Go.

Ah, the old "you're doing it wrong" argument. Moving code from one place to another (copy/paste from online or just from one file to another) is a fairly common source of bugs for a lot of people when it comes to Python. At some point, it becomes clear is an issue with the language, not the people.

I enjoy Python, but the significant whitespace is _not_ one of the reasons.