xg15

Aah, sweet first dates. Pick a place, pick a time, swap each other's GDPR/CCPA consents. Who doesn't know it?

Evidence for what? That Silicon Valley has lost the plot? Or rather that its vision of "the future" turns out to be pretty horrible?

Weren't the past years - from attention economy, surveillance capitalism and enshittification over crypto grifters to rationalist cults , "existential AI risk" that they're simultaneously warning against and building to Thiel's "Antichrist" to every Big Tech company pivoting from progressive to conservative the moment Trump comes back into power - enough evidence?

This is a common issue with any thinking that emphasises some type of ‘strengthening organisations’ i.e. it assumes someone is in charge. Put it this way, not only is Dario Amodei more powerful than Donald Trump, but systematised incentives are a hell of a lot more powerful than Dario Amodei.

The reality that Leo is pretending not to live in is that nature of collective truth simply will change as a result of this technology. The challenge for someone interested in human wellbeing is to work out how we thrive in a world where you cannot tell whether the things you see or hear actually happened. Or whether any of the people you encounter via technology actually exist. How does meaning operate in that environment?

AI is a force of nature and the companies who are pouring billions into its development are actually powerless to do anything about it...

The e/acc bro manifesto in a nutshell, I guess.

Seems like the same logic used to argue against climate action nowadays: "There is nothing we can do, so we better learn to live with complete ecosystem collapse"

Yeah, in the other direction, I see at least one WWII-era "pillbox" bunker in France (part of the Marginot Line?) listed as "fortress".

It's a nice idea, but the range seems extremely broad on the one hand but very incomplete on the other hand.

They can’t do what we do. And they hate us for it.

You could make a plausible conspiracy theory that this was why so much capital was invested to develop generative AI: Maybe the holy grail of tech CEOs wasn't AGI, it was a web full of content without those annoying content creators...

As tortured as you will feel after using OpenCode!

I feel that a better title for this article would be: "Some minor annoyances that, when fixed, would improve OpenCode"

If you don’t know what OpenCode is, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The boot is made of TypeScript and the face is everything we have learned about security and systems software since the invention of the electronic computer in the 1940s.

Regardless if that's a good or bad take, I'd like titles on HN to reflect what the author wanted to say and not editorialized to what HN readers think the article should be saying.

Misunderstood that as "moist towel museum" first and was worried for a moment.

My first impression after viewing was that this is less "owning the harms" and more simple "leading and pacing".

Note how the voiceovers start with hard, even fundamental criticism of AI, including "why do we need this at all?". But then over the course of the video, the criticism becomes ever more narrow and "nuanced", before straight up turning into "can AI do X for me?" questions thay could have been grabbed right from the ChatGPT homepage.

If that's what Anthropic sees as "hope", it's probably more hope for itself...

They could also just tax rich people more and use that money for conservation...

Won't say this is all, but I think there are some design decisions that actively push it away from that:

- No DMs

- A UI that strongly deemphasizes specific posters and emphasizes messages in an abstract "discussion tree"

- No persistent or "sticky" threads. Every discussion that takes place here will be off the front-page and essentially forgotten in a few days. There is no space where anything like "community lore" could develop. (*)

All that strongly encourages you to focus on links and messages, but not on the people behind it or on longer-form discussions.

(*) That's not quite true - if you're long enough here, you do see some patterns emerge, like reoccurring preferences or discussions emerge, and even "celebrities" whose pages get upvoted to the front page disproportionately often. But it's all implicit, observational stuff, there is not really a "water cooler" or "off topic" area for discussion. (Apart from the annual "Merry Christmas" thread maybe)

It's trite, but I think a part of it is "because the internet happened" - and I don't mean just today's enshittification era but also the "good old times" everyone seems to remember fondly here. At some point, the internet was full of that kind of community spirit that you described, but of course this meant that people were more likely to direct their energy to online community building than to real-life stuff. And unfortunately online communities didn't always teach the skills that offline communities required, and also probably contributed a lot to the "consumer mindset" the OP warns against...

There seems to be some general pattern here that you can find pretty often in "dev war stories" contexts:

(1) We're a small startup/new product team/etc, let's just build the MVP and keep everything simple!

(2) Now we're not small anymore and suddenly have all kinds of nonfunctional requirements we never imagined before! But our simple architecture from before is making everything a pain now!

The natural instinct is then to compromise on the "simpleness" of the first prototype and already try to anticipate all the scaling and nonfunctional requirements that might come later - but that rarely seems to work, as you can't really how (and if) the project will grow.

Seems to me, the real question here is why those teams are still using the "MVP" code even after being well inside the "scale up" phase. Shouldn't this be the point where you gradually migrate to a codebase that is more manageable at scale?

Waiting for the next Neuralink announcement...

Are there any "funny" combinations in that list that don't involve toilet humor?

I imagine people either buy single bananas as a quick snack or bananas in bulk for breakfast. (Ignoring the "funny" uses here). I wonder if this kind of irregular pattern is a reflection on people's breakfast habits.

Starting to think the data center protesters are on to something. Instead of sitting there, thinking wistfully how the world is going to shit, but we can't do anything, not even stopping ourselves from participating, they do something.

Maybe they call any kind of algorithm that accesses the content of media (e.g. pixel colors) and not just metadata "AI" now?

Ah, thanks for the info they are different emoji and the diagram is just wrong. Was thinking the same how such a redesign could lead to misunderstandings.

Thanks! That other link was much more informative.

I think it's a bit annoying that for some emoji, they still change the content and not just the style.

It's not as bad as the "gun/watergun controversy", but I think especially that cat emoji could lead to messages being interpreted differently, depending which version of the emoji you see.

The corporate link in the OP was gushing endlessly about the sophisticated ways to communicate emotions that are ostensibly enabled by emoji, so shouldn't then companies at least make sure the emojis consistently show the same thing?

Always found it a bit strange that USB-C is referred to as a "new connector" when it clearly seems to be an entirely new protocol. (Unlike the previous new connectors mini and micro which were just differently-shaped plugs for the same wires)

So is the protocol technically USB 4.0 and USB-C "just" a new connector role defined by that protocol, or did they ditch the versioning and "USB-C" is its own thing?

The guide mentions that USB 4.0 is the first version to require a USB-C connector, but then later refers to the "USB-C protocol". Is that the same as USB 4.0?

Waiting for the Polymarket joint venture...

I never got the logic of "I don't like this thing, so why does it exist?"

Others might not have a choice than to take the train or use public healthcare (or maybe you or me too, depending on how life turns out), and for that I'm glad they are of decent quality.

Then there are the CO2 emissions of planes, but that's another topic...

It doesn't fall to zero, but for some people, there is still a difference between playing a game directly after release when everyone is figuring out and talking about it vs playing it years later.

It's the same as watching a movie in cinema or following a series or watching it later.

I mean, we do have affordable healthcare and usable trains (in some countries)...

I like how, if you hold the phone at a distance, but not as far as intended by the font, your brain sort of mixes letters from both messages.

I was at some point reading SAPPY ROMAN, HARPY ROBAN etc.

Also, viewing the "hidden message" works even better if you hold the screen at an angle, tilted away from you.

Was confused about this as well. The whole thing sounds as if someone confused LLMs writing code and inspecting or executing that code - and then ran with it.

Still, the idea of mostly formal code with dedicated sections that the LLM fills in doesn't sound so bad - but also a bit outdated. It would have been useful a year ago, but not when coding agents generate the entire project in a coffee break.

Edit: The author explains it a bit more in another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48863898

If the audience are people who aren't necessarily able to inspect the generated code, but still want more structure and determinism than pure "vibe coding", this makes more sense.

Maybe that's what "durable" means in economic jargon? A good that does not (or only very slowly) lose value over time?

If that what it means, Steam would not apply, because games were by that definition very much not durable.

There is some poetic beauty in how this experiment started with an unwanted real Cloudflare intervention and ended with a wanted fake one.

Yes, but it's dumb to deliberately provoke a mistake that could be avoided, just to "build character"