rTX5CMRXIfFG

Dear god back your shit up with historical financial data or stay in 9to5Google comments

No Pride and Prejudice?

I prefer native apps over web apps, but I’m honestly at the point now where I just want to make voice or chat commands and get an output, instead of learning some self-important UI/UX person’s custom UI controls aka “””design system”””

Everything is not well defined as long as you don’t think about it hard enough. With that attitude, you can dismiss any genuinely thoughtful question with potentially painful answers, which is why a lot of people like it.

I get what you mean about a great deal of books being fluff but are you sure you're not just looking at the self-help and bestseller section? Because this was my problem too, but I eventually figured out that if I really wanted to learn something or survey a subject, I'd end up with a college reference textbook. Or, audit a class and watch videos in Coursera or some other open education platform.

The irony of your getting this advice from an HN comment isn't lost on me, but if you're so concerned about fluff, I'd have thought that comments in the internet would be the first thing you'd rule out because it's so full of noise and non-expert hot takes.

I’m gonna break it to you bud, the people you see only once a decade or so aren’t your friends. Those are shallow acquaintances that you’re letting drag on for too long. They’re not a part of your life and you’re not a part of theirs.

At most, you can call them professional contacts whom you hope to get some value out of in the future, and in that sense I’d agree — social media makes it possible to keep in touch with people whom you have a transactional relationship with.

It’s one thing to believe in presence with zero evidence, and another to _withhold_ judgment when there’s zero evidence. I think you may be conflating the two.

Then again, perhaps we are simply two different types of people. I don’t believe that a complex system can be expected to stay the same when you introduce a new factor into it, while you prefer to adjust much later when effects appear or when evidence achieves total infallibility up to the academic level. I am risk-averse, you like taking it; I’d rather prevent, you’d rather cure. Stating that the former is “far, far more dangerous” is just begging the question though.

Eh, people who write about their parenting in the internet are opening it for comments

And yet, people can be extremely vigilant about a positive correlation when it doesn’t fit their personal agenda, going as far as questioning methodology in even the least pragmatic ways possible; or, become accepting of the absence of evidence as evidence of absence when weak/no correlation is convenient to their own biases.

I actually read the article first, but I find it too long, and unnecessarily so. I am a huge proponent of reading, especially for the acquisition of new knowledge and perspectives, but I consider this form of writing rather entitled, beating around the bush and demanding too much of my time and attention just to make a point or two.

Conveniently, those are the subdomains of the tech industry that require a deep understanding of CS theory (eg embedded systems) and DS&A, and yet whenever the subject of Leetcode comes up on HN, software “engineers” swoop in to argue how useless those are as a whole to 90% of the software being built in the world today…

Which, really, implies that 90% of people in this industry work in bullshit jobs that don’t require real engineering skills. You could even spout any BS about architecture in Medium.com and then asked to speak in a conference if it gets enough views.

Uh, why do you think that a legal basis is the correct foundation on which to anchor an argument in favor of privacy? Laws vary per jurisdiction. Which country’s laws are you saying is the correct point of reference?

Besides, for democracies, explicit mentions of a “right to privacy” would typically be enshrined in a bill of rights which isn’t “law” in itself, but only cited as founding principles behind actual laws, such as those against wiretapping, which you probably have wherever you live.

I’m not sure why you think that legality is a meaningful point of discussion at all. The subject is clearly a matter of principle. Heck, authoritarian states probably don’t have bills of rights and commit all sorts of atrocities on their citizens, but I’d talk about the right to a fair trial all the same.

And please don’t conflate this with other issues and other threads

And I agree with the commenter’s well-meaning, but we are technically teaching systems theory already in schools. If you’ve had classes in any of the natural sciences, you’ve had systems thinking. If you don’t remember a whit, well then, proves your point—it’s probably not that great of an idea afterall.

Violation of rights to privacy — age verification ties an identity to the request, so if you’re surfing porn or browsing controversial threads, you could be flagged by law enforcement or the other third parties that the state might be sharing data with, such as insurance companies that might infer the wrong things about you. You could be blackmailed, too.

And then there’s also the leakage of those data points to rival nation states, in case of a security breach.

Plenty of bad nth order effects if you just think about it

I don’t work in fintech (yet) but I’ve studied finance recently and quite a lot of these pieces of advice are just intuitive when you know the business domain. Learning the “customer” of your software helps too

You seem to think you’ll have access to the benefits, heh

Because a package index isn’t actually core to a programming language, and specifically with Swift, Apple tried to ship as many of the necessary types as possible in the standard library

What is your point? Are you going to subject your parenting to their whims or are you going to be an adult and discipline them into doing what is right for them?

Granted, an 11-year old who doesn't want to go to school is already symptomatic of many years of failure of parenting, but 11 is such a young age and there's certainly plenty of room to stimulate their curiosity. What kind of an adult would deliberately raise their children to know so little of this world?

But how do you know that letting kids use AI at a way earlier age is the right way to equip them for the world that they would live in? You don't even know what that world will be like, so you can't even draw the conclusion that teaching them AI today will create career success in the future.

And then there's the other solid supporting arguments:

- Humans today were able to comprehend and use AI as soon as ChatGPT became popular so kids today will be able to pick it up quickly as grown-ups.

- "Using AI" isn't really a skill because there isn't much to learn beyond typing to a chatbot and reading the output (creating agentic workflows are very much for power users).

- The form of AI tech today might not even be the same as its form in the future, so you're already teaching them something obsolete.

Wouldn’t you consult a book or a video and practice a skill if you really wanted to expand your knowledge? And a “well-read janitor”, while certainly possible, is a trope more often seen in works of fiction. And what does “expanding your emotion or art” even mean?

didn't know that, but the point of the burner is to trap junk email in an account you don't care to read

tutanota.com protonmail.com

create a burner for when ‘not always applicable unfortunately’

https://archive.ph/2026.06.16-004308/https://www.wired.com/s...

I'm happy about using AI for my work as a programmer, but part of the reason why I was initially skeptical of the tech was that I simply couldn't imagine nor feel the need for much AI features on the consumer side of things, i.e. personal phones and devices for casual everyday users.

What I want Siri to be able to do today is the same as when it launched with the iPhone 4S about 20 years ago: Just set alarms, calendar invites, tweak device settings, and look up answers on the web. The first three it could already do prior to the Siri revamp, the latter is a really nice nice-to-have for iOS 27... but beyond that, I don't believe that AI has many jaw-dropping areas of advancement within the use cases of consumer electronics. B2B applications of AI is where the money and the wow factor is really at.

What Apple said was that on-device models would be from the iPhone Air/17 Pro models and newer. That doesn't mean that the iPhone 15 Pro to 16 wouldn't get Apple Intelligence via Private Cloud Compute, though that probably means they won't have on-device models. I don't remember the marketing for those phones promising on-device models, just Apple Intelligence capabilities in general.

You’re hurling a separate set of UX issues onto the subject of the EU’s deferred inclusion

Also is Siri the only thing you’re using in your Apple products that you’re so clueless as to ask “what good experience”? I mean, what kept you in the ecosystem for 18 years and counting?

I am getting serious use out of LLMs, and everyone else who does knows that those claiming otherwise are only getting slop because they’re not giving it enough guard rails, likely because they’re uninitiated, likely because they hate AI in the first place.

I constantly wonder what life was like, then, for the earliest inventors, scientists, and curious minds in our history. Surely they didn't have many people to bounce ideas or build things with. How did they find the strength to persist in their interests? These days, it's far easier to quit when you cannot find community since you can distract yourself with many kinds of entertainment instead; and with bleak economic outlook everywhere, the very act of persistence itself can feel rather pointless.

I shudder at the mere thought of opening this can of worms, but… have you looked into web3?

I think that that would have been Apple’s positioning for their car project, but that seems to have been axed.

Maybe they’ll bring it back someday, I hope they do, but it’s almost guaranteed that governments will rain down regulation on them for entering too many markets at once—and yes, for building operating systems to which Apple refuses to build a backdoor to the encryption.