HN user

kasdi

23 karma
Posts1
Comments47
View on HN

After listening to a few dozen chimes and confusing some of them I can't help but wonder why we accept technology to communicate to us in this crude way. Why not make it talk to us, "too fast", "too close", "hand brake active", etc.?

Might want to keep chimes for emergency warnings where speech would be too slow, although there's an argument to be made that speech would still be better, since jarring chimes might scare you so much that you take just as much if not more time until you've identified the emergency.

tremendous power in "not knowing what you don't know" that sometime in university disappeared

This.

By now I believe university does at least as much harm as it does good if not more. The good mainly boils down to building up contacts and connections. If you’re able to find a substitute for that, then skip university!

Unfortunately, this seems to be the future. While now the sky is largely empty with an occasional plane, in the future it will be filled with drones. It already happened with cars. A century ago the land was mostly quiet, now you usually have a loud and busy street somewhere in the vicinity. And in the farther future, it will be spaceships in the solar system (and maybe beyond).

Interesting point. Seems like a point where the law lacks behind technological progress. Though, in any case, most people aren’t aware of the detailed laws and when pressured enough by enough authority - perhaps not quite lawfully - they will give in. So, this seems to me a rather niche case where both sides know and follow the law, which is usually not the case.

The project is a mess, which is obvious if one follows it. There is only slow progress. Instead of focusing everyone on one thing to do it right, they focus on multiple things that remain half-baked forever, e.g. multiple concurrent implementations like Synapse and Dendrite, Element and Hydrogen, Element and Element X, etc. pp. They seem to have organizational challenges, stemming from technical founders who didn’t know that it takes more than technical knowledge to build a great product. I believe they’ve learned somethings, e.g. that Element’s UI has always been crap hence Element X now, which they’ve denied for a long time. But they are surely still learning, e.g. how to be a focused and decisive leader, etc.

A project is always in large a reflection of the leaders. It’s the messy hackathon type project - not the clear and polished corporate project.

Great approach. User agent default style sheets are the worst, especially since they are all different.

But, instead of handing the user a empty slate with nothing, it should contain a note saying “look, these are the recommended options”. If the initial config is interactive, it could even prompt to activate them: “want to use compression?” - “yes”, etc.

Maybe the issue is that we overload the concept of a function with an entirely different thing, a Future / Promise. Maybe if the syntax would have been entirely different too, it would have been easier to understand. We tend to have different syntax for different things.

I’m hesitant towards not distinguishing different things anymore and let the underlying system “figure it out”. I’m sure this could work as long as you’re on the happy path, but that’s not the only path there is.

Think about an AI as a personal assistant - for the whole world. Would you want the assistant to know about your business?

In most cases I do think so. It could mention you in a conversation, the analog to you appearing in Google Search results. And maybe even better, provide the necessary context to generate more real customers for your business. You don’t want traffic to your website, you want customers to your business. If you currently convert 10% of your traffic to customers, you’d be happy with 10% of the traffic of which you convert all to customers, because they are already converted before they even clicked your link.