jackp96

So the styling and animation work looks really cool (when isolated), but they distract from the content itself, IMO.

I think it'd work better if you featured the animated background effect toward the top of the page and shifted toward static graphics (or much subtler animations) as the user scrolls.

And I don't think the zoom-out effect on the listing cards has the intended effect; I found myself wanting to get a better look at the papers and was a little disappointed/annoyed when they got smaller and harder to see as I pulled them into view.

The colors/shadows/layout all looks really nice, but I feel like the animations (as-is) ultimately detract from the experience rather than add to it. Thanks for sharing, though!

They're just so handy! I do think LLMs tend to use them in a specific way, though.

So maybe tweaking your usage (ex. no spaces around them) or using a technically incorrect en-dash might offer the desired effect while subtly signaling that your message isn't AI-generated.

I still use them — mostly for pauses — but I'd like to think my voice sounds distinct enough from an AI that people can tell.

I mean, I largely agree with the sentiment (friction is important for growth/happiness, after all). But even as a developer, I'm able to quickly whip up custom personal apps that I just wouldn't be able to justify the time for previously.

Our CEO just took a design mock-up of a new landing page and threw it into Fable, and it spit out an objectively better iteration of the component's design. The hierarchy made more sense, the typography was more polished, and it naturally incorporated some elements we hadn't added yet.

We won't implement everything it changed of course, but it's the first time I've seen a model take a decent draft of a webpage mockup and improve it in a way that feels like a more evolved version of the original instead of just LLM-ifying it.

Absolutely. I was homeschooled growing up, and my parents were fairly strict about screentime. We read anything we could get our hands on, and I feel like I'm a happier, healthier adult today because of it.

While I'm now on my phone too much, and I don't read fiction as much as I used to, I'm grateful for those foundations.

The friction and discomfort that come from reading/exercising/learning/growing is so important, and I hope we can find a healthier balance for the next generation.

So I'm not personally on the spectrum, but I definitely get the frustration with "this is so fake; why are we all pretending it's not?" experiences.

But "almost all praise is fake" and "small talk is all lies" feels like a pretty depressing place to end up?

Why do you feel like that's the case? How do you differentiate sincere praise from "fake" praise?

I've struggled at times with various app blockers and limits. Most of them are just a little too easy to disable — or they prevent usage altogether.

AppBlock on Android has a feature that allows you to continue using an app after your time limit is up — if you're willing to wait 3 minutes without swiping to another app. And then, by default, it'll kick back in 15 minutes later.

Works really well for me.

Yeah, I see language like this a lot, but we don't live in an idealized microeconomic market with perfect information flow and competition levels.

Some companies are in highly competitive spaces while others have found a quiet, profitable niche.

And companies do have to compete for talent. If you want A-level players on your team, you're going to have to pay them more and/or provide benefits that surpass the competition.

Also — it's objectively a better search product to give users what they're looking for right away.

Though that's not to say they're acting altruisticly here.

Google seems to be racing toward a new dark pattern where users learn to trust rely on the AI for neutral, smart objectively correct answers — which boosts trust in its sponsored product recommendations. Super gross.

Neither conservative nor Mormon, but online gambling is an addictive scourge that ruins lives, and I'd love to see it banned broadly. And go ahead and ban paid loot boxes as well.

I don't love casinos or lotteries, but at least there's the friction of having to travel to a physical location to feed your addiction.

And then there's the whole "insider trading" and "gambling on war" angles that come into play with prediction markets.

There are plenty of dark patterns in digital marketing, and you're generally right about the thinking.

But there is a (somewhat plausible) defense here: if someone forwards you an email and you hit the unsubscribe link, then it unsubscribes them; not you. Requiring the user to enter their email helps ensure you don't accidentally unsubscribe the wrong person.

That said — the most impactful thing anyone can do to punish dark pattern digital marketing behavior is to report the message as SPAM in your email client. That'll hurt their delivery rates and damage their sending reputation with email providers.

I take your point, but aren't most social interactions technically manipulative through this lens?

If you wear nice clothes and exercise, then are you just trying to manipulate people into thinking you have taste and are attractive?

If you work hard at your job and are responsive to your boss's requests, then are you just manipulating them into thinking you're a good worker and giving you a raise?

These tools can certainly be misused (see shitty salespeople), but I don't "attempting to convince others that you are cool and likable" is problematic and manipulative.

Just don't fake it. That's the part people have a problem with. I just read it as "if you want people to care about your shit, then it's only fair you care about theirs first."

Really curious how many people actually get close to that level of usage? Their general business plan only offers the $100 version, with pay-as-you-go above that.

If 95% of people are using $100 of value a month, the whales may not be hurting them that badly.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson tackle this specific example (along with others) in their book Abundance that came out last year. It's a pretty easy read, and a really interesting examination of why projects like this struggle.

But as other commenters have pointed out — a lot of it is NIMBYism (plus a heavy dose of overregulation).

Conservatives tend to point at projects like this as examples of why our incompetent government shouldn't be allowed to build large projects.

But other countries can do this (including a good chunk of Europe), so I think it's really valuable to dig in and understand why we struggle.

100% agree with you here. Psychologically, I'm pretty convinced that the best spaces on the internet (and potentially off of it) require some small amount of friction for quality conversation and collaboration.

Comment sections on paid substacks tend to be much better than free ones. And on Hackernews (and Reddit, a decade ago), the old-school, text-heavy approach (complete with voting) help ensure that quality content rises.

I find the balance fascinating — exactly how much friction do you need to create a healthy online community? And what are the best ways of doing that without making people pay?

Why do you think people dislike AI-generated content?

It's not because AI-generated music inherently sucks. It's generally C-grade professional music. It's just not novel or especially interesting, and the low barrier to entry means there's a ton of slop in the space.

A lot of people have always wanted to make music, never made it past the barrier of "music is hard," and therefore have no clue as to what makes truly good music. And now that they have AI, they think they can just skip all the boring parts and make great songs.

And while they can skip a lot of steps in the creative process — those skipped steps also help musicians develop their artistic taste and judgment.

And just because these AI "creators" can't tell the difference, they assume others can't either. And then they get mad when critics recognize their uninspired, derivative slop for what it is.

That's not limited to music, either. You see it in coding, graphic design, writing, and pretty much any other LLM-assisted content generation. Maybe it'll change one day as models get better. Maybe not.

This project is original, stylish, technically clever, aesthetically pleasing, and well-crafted. There's a level of polish and intention behind it, and people here recognize that.

So, philosophically speaking, I agree with this approach. But I did read that there was some speculation regarding the future legal implications of signalling that an AI wrote/cowrote a commit. I know Anthropic's been pretty clear that we own the generated code, but if a copyright lawsuit goes sideways (since these were all built with pirated data and licensed code) — does that open you or your company up to litigation risk in the future?

And selfishly — I'd rather not run into a scenario where my boss pulls up GitHub, sees Claude credited for hundreds of commits, and then he impulsively decides that perhaps Claude's doing the real work here and that we could downsize our dev team or replace with cheaper, younger developers.

CVS. Refilling a prescription is a very easy process now; I was really surprised.

Not OP, but my understanding is that voting for politicians who prioritize more sustainable policies and advocating for industry regulation to cut down on things like single-use plastics (or promoting EV use/infrastructure build outs) has a much bigger impact than recycling or not flying.

I (unfortunately) just don't think it's pragmatic/reasonable to expect enough people to make personal sacrifices/reduce QOL to make a dent. It's a tragedy of the commons, and we need some form of reasonable regulation to cut down on the worst offenders (probably carbon taxes) while we invest heavily in improving the technology so it makes financial sense to switch.

Renewables have come so far in the past decade and are now competitive with fossil fuels in terms of pricing. As the technology continues to become more efficient and cheaper, we'll likely start to see significant drops in emissions in addition to cheaper energy.*

*Assuming the US elects a rational adult to the presidency in 2028.

Any documentation regarding the claim about breaking their contract?

Haven't heard that. Regardless, as someone who works with these models daily (as well as company leadership that loves AI more than they understand it) - Anthropic is absolutely right to say that the military shouldn't be allowed to use it for lethal, autonomous force.

I think it's really dependent on the software. And frankly, with the current rate of development, I feel like this continues to shift.

No, a non-engineer can't just spin up the next great app. Even with the newest models and a great prompting/testing system, I don't think you can just spit out high quality, maintainable, reliable code. But as a generalist - I'm absolutely able to ship software and tools that solve our business problems.

Right now, my company identified an expensive software platform that was set to cost us around $250k/year. People in the industry are raving about it.

I've spent 1-2 weeks recreating the core functionality (with a significantly enhanced integration into our CRM and internal analytics) in both a web app and mobile application. And it's gone far smoother than I expected. It's not done - and maybe we'll run into some blocker. But this would have taken me 6 months, at least, to build half as well.

I was an AI skeptic for most of last year. It provided value, sure, but it felt like we were plateauing. Slowing down.

I'd hoped we might be slowing down to some sort of invisible ceiling. I was faster than ever - but it very much required a level of experience that felt reasonable and fair.

It feels different now.

I'd say ~70% of my Claude Opus results just work. I tweak the UI and refactor when possible. And it runs into issues I have to solve occasionally. But otherwise? If I'm specific, if I have it brainstorm, then plan, and then implement - then it usually just works.

I mean, obviously.

But when was the last time our "democratic values" were under attack by a foreign country and actually needed defending?

9/11? Pearl Harbor?

Maybe I'm missing something. We have a giant military and a tendency to use it. On occasion, against democratically elected leaders in other countries.

You're right; freedom isn't free. But foreign countries aren't exactly the biggest threats to American democracy at the moment.

Station Eleven is so beautiful and human. Great pick. Highly recommend The Leftovers if you liked that one. Its exploration of life and grief and humanity following a secular rapture is stunning, and the performances are outstanding.

I'm not an Elon fan at all, and I'm highly skeptical of Tesla's robotaxi efforts in general, but the context here is that only one of these seems like a true crash?

I'm curious how crashes are reported for humans, because it sounds like 3 of the 5 examples listed happened at like 1-4 mph, and the fourth probably wasn't Tesla's fault (it was stationary at the time). The most damning one was a collision with a fixed object at a whopping 17 mph.

Tesla sucks, but this feels like clickbait.

For my company, being able to view the user journey throughout the site in the analytics is pretty valuable.

We don't care who the specific users are - but the tracking gives us an idea of how many people use the site? do they have a good experience? are they giving us money? do we have a bug somewhere we're missing? etc.

All that is valuable as a business.

I definitely think you're onto something. Also, we're inherently psychologically biased toward negative content because all the monkeys who ignored the scary things died.

We're naturally wired to engage with negative content - and that's a must-use recipe for success in an economy that increasingly relies on grabbing your attention.

It's no wonder that depression and anxiety rates are higher than ever, despite our world being much, much safer than it was 100-200 years ago.

Even being aware of this doesn't help all that much.

Trump did a new, unbelievably dumb thing that's going to ruin people's lives? Instant click from me.

Malaria rates down 20% over the past 10 years in the DRC?* I'm still scrolling.

*Fake example, but you get the gist.