animuchan

True, but the current state of advertising is, charitably, kinda goofy.

I'm not surprised the iteration we're seeing now is perceived as failing: on the few remaining screens where ads are still present for me, they're between highly irrelevant to flat out repulsive. There are a few brands I will never touch with a long stick, purely as a result of their disturbing, disgusting ads -- again, charitably, a negative-sum game.

It is amusing we pass laws to fix bad UX. But if it works, can't argue with it. I would like a law against unwanted popovers now please.

That, and filing false claims should be incredibly punishable, like beyond all proportion.

One disgusting CEO landing behind the bars over frivolous DMCA takedown would improve things dramatically, like for humanity (or a hefty chunk thereof that's browsing the web, anyway).

OK yeah I didn't know they stopped allowing to root. Normal levels of DRM then, my mistake, you're right.

Neat, thanks for this correction! Interesting, an entire new programming language.

It's Android but without Google's services, there's an alternative app store.

The irony of Chinese vendors providing a breath of fresh low-DRM air.

You will not. Have a nice day though! Now with more time to spend on positive things. :)

That group is against our political freedoms, so we're naturally against their political freedoms. Are we just doing tribalism and then intellectualizing? (I don't know what the answer is, but I fear it's a resounding "yup".)

Yep -- and it's good.

Before: customer pays fines for bad security, rolled into the price of the offering.

After: customer pays for actual good security, rolled into the price of the offering.

If the customer doesn't care, no change. If the customer cares (and let's low key assume PII is important) -- they see net gain from this change.

This thread reads as an example of anything BUT plurality of opinion -- most of the people here never in their lives considered that the country in question has political discourse at all, and what's going on in there politically, so no opinion was ever present.

Furthermore, consider that the opinion-like discourse is clearly performative. We all know what the correct virtue signaling looks like, and we know that we need to ruin every person not doing the correct virtue signaling.

So it's less of a plurality-of-opinion situation, and more of a direct-democracy situation: a lynch mob.

(Not saying it's good or bad btw -- not my circus, not my monkeys. Just dishonest to say we love some sort of plurality while doing this I think.)

I wonder if by this thread's logic, it is now my turn to virtue signal as if I'm leaving Mullvad as a customer, because now you said that don't like someone else's freedom of conscience, and I value freedom of conscience.

Such a bad place we're in: people say they value "freedom", but then you can't choose you own political representation without being witch-hunted to death by the same "freedom" group.

(I honestly think that the perfect response in this case would be to support the cofounder, if anything, to make their own choices, and refuse to hate on the person's political leaning. But alas, the chains of freedom are super heavy.)

Yes please! Making PII leaks an expense (like rent and cloud costs) means it's paid by the customer.

I strongly believe we should distinguish the price of doing the operation (aka rent) and the price of doing crime (ideally, jail).

This is probably the most charitable explanation humanly possible.

Surely for this specific example of managerial stupidity it just is, but I mean more generally, it's a beautiful posting.

I aspire to have this much misplaced belief in any humans at all, let alone CEOs.

Personally I'm (vaguely) anti-AI because I'm made to interface with it a lot.

Every time I open my editor, there's another colorful popup about some AI feature or other, and it's never what I want. Product people don't seem to understand that nobody wants ads in their editor, no matter how animated and HDR.

And I use all of the AI, to be clear, and surely it's a brilliant tool. But the fatigue is also real.

Which is why I want every big AI player to catastrophically fail -- not out of spite or anything, but because it will holistically improve on my current state of being. And the product people will need to learn some profession so probably will stop with the ads, too.

I want to think it's not an anti-AI stance really, but pro-user, in some real sense.

And in the end the big reveal is, it was a dude in VR all along, piloting the dumb things remotely. Every single time, without exception.

This is why I'm thankful for Chinese LLM research. They'll keep us honest.

Absolutely this, I'm the same as you.

And I'm just afraid this is what cognitive decline feels like from inside the deteriorating mind.

From what I'm aware of -- not manslaughter. Compelled suicide or what's it called is substantially different, you always want to serve the sentence on this and not murder. (Not legal advice of course.)

Well, it's entirely lawful until proven otherwise in court. So 100% clean behavior from this POV.

For most of the users on HN, the answer to "is bribe legal in your country?" would be a resounding "yup".

US regulates over-the-table political bribes. Corporate political influence is functionally bribe-like, a reciprocal influence economy.

I see the point, but nobody in their right mind would call a mere text message "please delete your work" to be malware, much like telling someone "please die" is very very different from attempted manslaughter.

Truly feels like the UI/UX is done by people

To me it feels like it's done entirely by an LLM, starting from the product vision.

This is so beautifully cursed, reusing the module loader state as your local state. We could have the familiar Python syntax of

`from <key> import <value>`

And a custom import hook eating the error. To get value(s) for a given key, naturally we'd scan the module loader cache. Elegant.

"The Good Parts"

This is infuriating in certain video games, like the StarCraft II single-player campaign: you're in the middle of 4 different things, your base is being slowly nibbled on by a few run-by zerglings, need to expand, babysit workers, creep / pylons / what have you. Then the game decides to show you something. It grabs your vision cone and forces it where it wants you to look -- slowly.

This specific action -- taking the thing away from the user, while they're actively engaging with it -- should be punishable by sacrificing the designer to Satan straight up. A bit harsh but justified.

It's a bit insane, but the cost of switching to regular NodeJS is low (for all but most bun-specific projects).

All valid points though, I'm pessimistic about Anthropic still actively diverting resources to these side quests when tough times hit (which might be in a week for all we know).

I think there's like the meta-bad AI usage idea, in which all other tarpit ideas take root.

"Let's outsource critical decision making to a language model."

Small scale of this can be seen when attempting to single-shot a whole SaaS by the means of a severely underspecified prompt. This is the first-order blind reliance situation: our SaaS sure is implemented in some way.

Really fiery tarpits put the LLM higher in the stack: let the language model decide what the feature should be. Our SaaS sure does something in some way.

Having a human in the loop at all times doesn't scale. Not having a human scales, but doesn't work.

That'd be crazy. The agent has a skill configured to fetch ticket descriptions from Jira by itself. Copy-pasting feels like manual labor.

Totally agree!

Bonus level "I have a hammer, all I see is nails": using Claude Code for random non-coding work, like dataset cleaning. It's really convenient to have a script spawning Haikus via `claude` CLI and feeding them prompts and JSON files. Money burn potential: practically unbounded, but also it's real work that the product people wanted done, so of course it has a cost associated with it. I'd be bewildered if anyone complained.

Counterpoint: let's say we connect a speaker to the HTTP server, and every time there's a request, the speaker produces a click. This setup will make audible sound. If it's OK to measure this sound in Hz, then is't OK to measure the HTTP requests in Hz, because they're explicitly === sound in this case.