HN user

trqx

96 karma
Posts2
Comments45
View on HN

For fun, GPT4 summary based on the URL alone:

Can you summarise this article? https://aeon.co/essays/jwsts-cosmic-revelations-will-change-...

The article discusses the upcoming launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and how its capabilities will allow us to explore the universe in new ways, potentially leading to significant scientific discoveries. However, the article also highlights how the revelations that JWST will bring may have a profound impact on our interior lives as well, leading to shifts in our perspectives, beliefs, and worldviews. The author argues that the awe-inspiring images and information that JWST provides may inspire a new appreciation for the cosmos and our place in it, leading to a more nuanced understanding of our own existence and purpose. Additionally, the discoveries made by JWST may challenge some of our preconceived notions about the universe, leading to a re-evaluation of our beliefs and assumptions. Ultimately, the author suggests that the launch of JWST marks an exciting and transformative moment in human history, one that has the potential to change both our scientific understanding of the universe and our personal and spiritual lives.

Did you hallucinate the article out of the url, or did you open that link?

As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to open links or browse the internet. I provided the summary based on the information in the URL that you provided me.

Excuse my ignorance but I’ve never considered buying a surface up until now (they looked like "powerpoint toys" to me, hopefully I am wrong).

My two most important criteria are not listed on their product page:

- do they usually sell matte screen?

- how is the hardware support for linux at launch?

I look at it this way: some sites might be worth paying for, none are worth being tracked for or being eye-raped by ads. I don't know why anyone would think it is a good idea to try and make money on something no one is willing to pay for.

About the adnauseam topic: while paywalled sites makes it clear that you need to pay for their content or services, the one with ads don't. You are candidly browsing the web and suddenly they just shove tons of trackers and ads down your browser, no question asked.

This is read by some people as an act of war, who are then motivated to retaliate using weapons like adnauseam. Of course they should just ignore or block the whole websites in questions, but no one can pretend they drew first blood.

I don't see the need for more visibility of github hosted projects. Many self-hosted projects on the other hand could profit from an aggregator.

feedback: I had a hard time using the site until I whitelisted dozens of third-party css, images, js, cookies, frames and XHRs. The umatrix list is HUGE.

Well, I cannot read the article on mobile without agreeing to being tracked, the popup takes 3/4th of the screen.

Ain't it the browser's job to display an agree/deny message for cookie tracking per domain? This seems backward to me as the page is already asking the browser to agree to storing cookie. As of now I need an extension in order to block cookies by default and whitelist them accordingly to my needs.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies _to improve your browsing experience on our site_. That looks like a lie to me. Is there anything stopping them from creating a cookie only once/if I login?

A common behavior I witness, is people using ad/tracker blockers such as ublock origin and/or umatrix and yet continue to consult websites that makes use of those trackers. Worse, they link those sites to other people that might not make use of those blockers. They don't think much of it, but ain't that evil?

Most of the times they don't even notice anymore that trackers were blocked on the page they consult.

Just look at links posted here on HN, most are of hostile websites.

I'd love to see a browser extension more radical: if it detects such third party scripts or cookies it simply stop loading the page and display a message explaining why instead.

Someone sends you a link to an article on cnn.com? Answer with this message telling why you won't consult it.

Going further: the extension attempts to extract the content, strip it of anything useless (some js libs works OK for such tasks), and share this version with others using this extension.

"do not link sites with autoplay videos" should be added to the guidelines imo.

When I encounter interesting articles on such anti-user sites, I don't bother browsing the site, I use a script to extract the article and rehost it on a public pastebin. I'd rather avoid them at all, and that wouldn't even be necessary if everyone used atom/rss feeds.

see example for this one: https://0x1a4.1337.cx/o_27/

You can blacklist bloomberg.com & co from your browser with extensions such as https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/blocksite/