fasbiner

Maybe your cultural frame is that mental health isn't a protected category and it's an appropriate insult. That's not what the law says in professional environments and that's not been my experience in professional discourse.

If your attitude is that if one person litters it's now ok for anyone else to dump on protected categories, it's your clubhouse and you can set the rules.

That's your right, and it's also my right to say that I don't want to be associated with this forum even indirectly.

Could you provide me with a good email address to send my CCPA request to delete all my data and comments and account? I sent emails to a few YC addresses with:

"I am writing to request that you delete my personal data from all of your paper and/or computer records pursuant to Section 1798.105 of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

To the extent that you rely on consent to process my personal data, I withdraw that consent. To the extent that you rely on your 'legitimate interest' to process my personal data, I object to the processing as there are no overriding legitimate grounds.

If you are selling my personal data to third parties, please consider this email as my direction to you not to sell my personal data to third parties.

Please don’t ask me to perform a self-service process such as locating my information on your website, filling out a form, or providing a mobile advertising ID. These requests place an undue burden on my side.

If you are not able to comply with my request to delete all of my personal data, please advise as to the specific reason for which this request cannot be acted on. Please advise which sections and subsections of the law you are relying upon, and identify the specific reason for which you are relying on those exceptions, such as which legal obligation, or internal purpose or use. Please delete all my personal data which does not fall under these exceptions."

I have not received a response.

I can write again in 46 days with a complaint attached mentioning you personally and a letter from my state representative indicating they'd like to know more as well. Or you can resolve this quickly in a mutually amicable way by just deleting my account and all my comments.

[flagged]

Presumably you do a lot of back-and-forth with AI, and as many other commenters have pointed out, this seems to have made you more credulous and less informed.

This point of view runs directly against mutually agreed upon matters of fact: https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-p...

The US healthcare system is not a market system nor did it occur naturally. Do you have any conflicts of interest that could cause you to have an emotional need to misunderstand basic information about it?

A two sentence comment requesting one piece of information that is highly likely to be collated with the original information for any reputable source

You would describe that as "relentless, harassing, and tangental?" rather than say "I can see how that would be a relevant question, I'm not sure."

I hope your mental health improves in the future, it's unfortunately not possible to assume good faith on your part when you jump to thought terminating cliches.

I'm rooting for you, to be clear! It sounds like your approach is more sophisticated than the average, and this is a pain point that is starting to get a lot of attention.

I can deeply, deeply relate. X and Bluesky are both going nuts with ai and ai scams, but _both_ of them banned an advertising account because we were... using a bot to automate behavior because their APIs are only a subset of functionality.

Their vision is a world where they use all the automation regardless of safety or law, and we have to jump through extra hoops and engage in manual processes with AI that literally doesn't have the tool access to do what we need and will not contact a human.

Please, please, please actually do this yourself or read any of the top comments. You are still missing the point, which you will understand if you actually do this and then look at the logs.

I would spend less time with theory and more time with practice to understand what people are getting at. MCP and CLI could, in theory, be the same. But in practice as it stands today, they are not.

MCP is just a way to write this in a structured way,

Nope! You are not understanding or are actively ignoring the difference which has been explained by 20+ comments just here. It's not a controversial claim, it's a mutually agreed upon matter of fact by the relevant community of users.

The claim you're making right now is believed to be false, and if you know something everyone else doesn't, then you should create an example repo that shows the playwright CLI and playwright MCP add the same number of tokens to context and that both are equally configurable in this respect.

If you can get that right where so many others have failed, that would be a a really big contribution. And if you can't, then you'll understand something first-hand that you weren't able to get while you were thinking about theoretically.

Some roosters lay eggs.

You might believe there is intrinsic sexual dimorphism among mammals and birds. You might even have overwhelming experimental and scientific evidence that proves it. But ask yourself: is it worth losing your job over?

Some roosters lay eggs.

Sorry, I think of HN as a technical forum where people prize precision.

I think that when you informally bolster lies of omission with your own imprecise language agreeing with it, that harms the quality of discussion and creates pointless confusion. I think you get less benefit of the doubt if you do that routinely. By your own admission you do that routinely since you use this as a place to speak informally in a casual web discussion where you are often imprecise or lie by omission.

I applaud your consistency and I await your categorical opposition to the United States and Israel.

Or is there some nuance and you feel, in order to remain consistent, that it would be permissible in principle for China to bomb Taiwan and execute their head of state so long as they kept it to an air war and relied on their local agents on the ground?

The majority of US support for Taiwan and it's current situation is owed entirely to supporting a military junta from the mainland that massacred the local Taiwainese who objected to it and suppressed civil society.

Are you saying you would've been neutral on an invasion of Taiwan before 1985 or so, since it wasn't a democracy?

I would also like to know if these are dual citizens or not. I think it would be newsworthy if hundreds of US passport holders who do not have chinese passports also were being held in China and not charged with any crime and unable to access consular services.

Sensationalizing claims then qualifying them later is inherently dishonest.

I don't doubt you, but what if someone's else's wife felt differently. Would that counteract your wife? Or is your wife special in an objective sense and her intuitions about hypotheticals are more valid than anyone else's?

Your wife feels a certain way and wanted to avoid a certain hypothetical. But since it didn't happen, we have no way of knowing how relevant these feelings are.

How can we address blacklisting and covid response if you are insisting that any comparison isn't relevant and that we should evaluate it with no baseline?

What are you talking about? Why are you using imprecise language like "popped the camera open?"

You've run into a site you view on chrome/firefox/safari accessing your camera without granting access a few times now?

Can you give us an example of a site that does this so we can reproduce? Or could you retract your statement and clarify that you did grant camera permissions for that site previously?

Otherwise, you're saying very casually there's a huge bug and security issue that no one else has detected but you personally have seem multiple times.

I've run into people on the internet misremembering things or not understanding how the browser works more times than I've run into browsers allowing access to system devices like the camera without a permission prompt.

You're stringing together a bunch of weasel words that are not a proof or a plausible suggestion of a proof.

"Suggests is more ambiguous" and "undermines the framing" are bare assertions you want to be true based entirely on your mental model that has several shaky unsupported axioms.

I would guess that anyone who describes that problem as "underspecified" has some kind of serious brain injury or is below A2 english proficiency and should be excluded from the dataset, but I would not assert that definitively as self-evident.

Very problematic to think that something's reproductive attributes have to correspond to what gendered noun we call it by.

This is a not-unexpected result if you think of AI as what it actually is instead of what a multi-trillion dollar marketing campaign wants it to be.

At heart, the corpus for this going to be an aggregation of commentary from people in the undisputed most obese era in all of human history performatively denouncing and mocking an imagined other for using cars to go short distances and advocating for walking.

So you've got all "50 meters away? Of course you should walk!" vs a much, much smaller sliver of content about trick questions.

There is no reasoning here, there has never been any reasoning, there has been reasonable or less reasonable weighting for existing reasoning people already did that became part of training data.

If you take away the input corpus, you also take away the illusion of reasoning.

Whereas with other things that can reason like corvids, or ants or octopodes or slime molds, they can derive novel solutions and do a bit of math without any answer key. Mathematics is pure reasoning without any interference and AI can't do it at all unless you provide it with a corpus of already accurate formulas.

People kept saying humans would fail this too, so I got a human baseline through Rapidata (10k people, same forced choice): 71.5% said drive. Most models perform below that.

This really is a grasping at straws ad hoc rationalization for the outcome that is never going to die, and you can see the top comments are efforts to salvage it or cast doubt on the outcome.

If you work for or own a lot of stock in an AI company, I understand you can't understand what you're being paid not to understand. But if you're anyone else...

No, nothing cute like that.

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/18079

The instance owner has absolute anonymity and absolute power to snoop with no access logs and no known identity. CCPA? GDPR? Access controls? Good luck! You can leave the instance, but you're leaving all your data behind for them or any future owner of the instance to do whatever they want with... forever.

And even if you trust them and everyone they will ever meet, people can and do store their server logs unencrypted.

Then argue they can't help it and you don't "get it" because that's just how the architecture has to work in order to... well it's not clear why this is a good design for the user or any better than other social media.

1) You still don't own your data 2) You still don't have any privacy 3) Every single part of the user experience is inferior or confusing and the people making it don't care because they're focused on doing what they can to connect kids with anonymous instance owners.

This looks interesting, but if you don't have creepy and opaque admin controls and algorthimic manipulation that create a thousand little tinpot Larry Ellisons, you should highlight that.

Because that's why no one I know uses Mastadon.

Yeah but it's not. This a complete contrivance and you're just making shit up. The prompt is much shorter than the output and you are concealing that fact. Why?

Github repo or it didn't happen. Let's go.

Part of the secret to the Simpsons' longevity is that is is something the majority of people on earth can catch a few seconds of in the background and still be able to follow by sheer recognition alone. This was always the majority of television, but the majority of television shows are cancelled and forgotten long before now.

It is now simply an extremely cost-efficient form of content relative to the value of the ad slots and licensing of the IP. People working on it now are technicians delivering a product to spec that is basically a perfect use case for generative AI.

"Hey claude, write me an episode of the simpsons where Homer starts investing in NFTs while Lisa and Bart goes to a comedically sinister horseback riding summer camp with a guest star that has a movie coming out this summer."

Or even:

"Write a skill that creates standard length 22 minute new simpsons episodes scripts and scene video prompts by combining a trending news topic with two or more simpsons characters. IMPORTANT: make it wacky!"

This is an extremely disappointing response. The issue is your dev relations people being shitty and unhelpful and trying to solve actual problems with media-relations speak as if engineers are just going to go away in a few days.

Arrogant and clueless, not exactly who I want to give my money to when I know what enshitification is.

They have horrible instincts and are completely clueless. You need to move them away from a public-facing role. It honestly looks so bad, it looks so bad that it suggests nepotism and internal dysfunction to have such a poor response.

This is not the kind of mistake someone makes innocently, it's a window into a worldview that's made me switch to gemini and reactivate cursor as a backup because it's only going to get worse from here.

The problem is not the initial change (which you would rapidly realize was a big deal to a huge number of your users) but how high-handed and incompetent the initial response was. Nobody's saying they should be fired, but they've failed in public in a huge way and should step back for a long time.

Very curious to know where you have been in the last few years for your to regard openai.com/chat as something known only to specialists and wholesalers. To stick with the sausage-making analogy: this is like someone selling costco hotdogs in the parking lot out of the back of a van for 25% markup because they pre-squeezed the ketchup on it.

How many people in the costco parking lot do you think there are that want costco hotdogs but are unaware of the existence of costco, costco hotdogs, ketchup, and what they cost?

I think the point was pretty clear if you are able to consider more than one point of view. People who are highly motivated and for whom it could make a life-or-death difference have considerable technical skills in this area in Russia consider Whatsapp to be insecure and prohibit its use, just as in the US, their counterparts consider telegram to be insecure and prohibit its use.

Perhaps you're simply struggling with the concepts here: would it help you to understand things better to add that russia and the US ban the use of Signal by their militaries and intelligence services?

Did you detect an implication that can't be extrapolated from the text without metacontext and secondary unstated axioms, or is your mind totally blank and baffled at what these data points could indicate?

What you are saying is empirically false. Change in a single line of executed code (sometimes even a single character!) can be the difference between a secure and non-secure system.

This must mean that you have been paid not to understand these things. Or perhaps you would be punished at work if you internalized reality and spoke up. In either case, I don't think your personal emotional landscape should take precedence over things that have been proven and are trivial to demonstrate.

Nothing changed, but many people struggle to understand their our own degree of relative ignorance and overvalue high-level details that are leaky abstractions which make the consequentially dissimilar look superficially similar.

The deeper issue is that your product is one of many chatGPT wrappers with no unique hook, not that users can find out you're one of many chatGPT wrappers with no unique hook.

I really appreciate this comment. So much of marketing is "puffery" or based on what would be best for the app creator for the audience to believe. Sometimes that lines up with reality, sometimes it doesn't.

In this case the marketing copy seems more like creator wishcasting or living in the past. I've fallen into this trap before too, of creating things as if AI was a secret in my basement and not something of intense focus by a plurality of 20 million+ software developers. Rarely does a technology landscape change so fast.

How you're framing it is helpful as well. Instead of saying "this already exists (so you shouldn't do it)", I think it's valuable to highlight what a competitive space this is. The creator will need to think hard about what they can do to differentiate their offering in 2026, both in marketing and functionality.