Unlurker|Replay|About
US moves to strip sovereign wealth investors of US tax perks (ft.com)
•
What would be the purpose behind this? Seems like it might discourage SWF from investing in the US?
•
My guess is to get people to pay taxes on this part. “ The blockers shield tax-exempt investors from liability. But the proposed changes could add hefty taxes to any distributions made to SWFs if the blocker is deemed to have “effective control” of a portfolio company.”
•
https://archive.today/KGig9
Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation (mintlify.com)
•
[delayed]
•
should've been posted on April 1st. would be better suited on that specific date! /s
•
I don’t understand how this made it to the front page
•
>Installing software is a task which should be left to AI What?? How do I get off of this train? I used to come to hacker news for a reason...what the fuck am I reading
•
>Installing software is a task which should be left to AI. This is such an insane statement. Is this satire?
•
This has to be a joke right? > Installing software is a task which should be left to AI. Absolutely I don't think so. This is a very bad idea. $ curl | bash was bad enough. But $ curl -fsSL | claude looks even worse. What could possibly go wrong?
•
fascinating. i personally (biased bc i work at Mintlify) think a markdown file makes more sense than a bash script because at least Claude kind of has your best interests at heart.
•
> Claude kind of has your best interests at heart How we've all been blue-pilled. Sigh..
•
> Installing software is a task which should be left to AI. Just like installing spice racks is a task which which should be left to military engineer corps.
Releasing rainbow tables to accelerate Net-NTLMv1 protocol deprecation (cloud.google.com)
•
They're just dumping them out as 2GB blobs onto a cloud? Where is the zippy search UI? Very lazy behavior for the hyper giant Google.
•
Holy smoke. I honestly thought the 90s called and wanted their Windows exploits back (TFA mentions 1999). I do remember talk about this from many moons ago. But we are in two-thousand-twenty-FUCKING-six. It's unbelievable. Just plain unbelievable.
•
This empowers script kiddies, but not significantly moreso than they already were. Of all the places this is still in use, they've been exposed for years, so this isn't likely to result in a a bunch of new exploitations. However, it's most likely to be used by governments, with legacy servers that are finicky, with filesharing set up that's impacted other computers configured for compatibility, or legacy ancient network gear or printers. I wonder who they're pushing around, and what the motivation is?
•
"To demonstrate how crappy most front door locks are, to boost our company's social media cred we will be leaving drills and a dish of bump keys at the entrance of the neighborhood."
•
NTLMv1 rainbow tables have been available for 15-20 years. The only thing new is that Google are publishing theirs.
•
> under 12 hours using consumer hardware costing less than $600 USD Great, so someone with half a motherboard can break this hash
Can't wait for someone to decide one of protocols used by google needs to be deprecated.
•
Google thrives on being the Internet's biggest bully. It turns out when nerds get a billion dollars they like being bullies too.
•
Well, you'll be waiting 20 years or so post-deprecation if you want an equivalent timeline.
•
Plenty of protocols used by google over the years have been deprecated. The difference being that google actually stops using insecure protocols when they are discovered to be insecure instead of trying to sweep things under the rug. Keep in mind we are talking about a protocol from 1987. How many protocols from 1987 is google currently using?
•
Google does whatever is convenient and makes them money. Altruism was never part of the equation.
•
Sure. Not being hacked is good for business. Keep in mind that google is primarily a cloud business. That means that they take on a lot more of a risk, as when they are hacked its a them problem vs traditional software where its much more the customer's problem. Security is very much about incentives, and the incentives line up better for google to do the right thing.
•
It's more about when Google assumed full control of the cloud, the browser, the OS, and everything in between they self-appointed themselves as the unelected standards board of the Internet, and forced everyone else to follow their whims and timelines. Some of which are completely insane.
We’re more patient with AI than with each other (uxtopian.com)
•
I am more patient with kids, dogs, etc.
•
> No frustration. No judgment. Just iteration. [citation needed] This entire article is just meaningless vibes of one guy who sells AI stuff.
•
I don't find the conclusions plausible. It's completely ignoring that AI is a machine and not in our social hierarchy, while humans are, and we have a large section of wetware devoted to constantly judging the social hierarchy and rules. At least personally this was obvious to me years before AI was around. Whenever we had clear data that came to an obvious conclusion, I found that it didn't matter if _I_ said the conclusion, regardless of if the data was included. I got a lot more leeway by simply presenting the data to represent my conclusion and let my boss come to it. In the first situation the conclusion was now _my_ opinion and everyone's feelings got involved. In the second the magic conch(usually a spreadsheet) said the opinion so no feelings were triggered.
•
The AI doesn't judge, it doesn't have ego, and generally, if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context). So in a sense, we are more forgiving of ourselves more than anything.
Ask HN: Those who quit tech, moved back home, what do you do?
•
I quit software, though I never made it very far in it it was my profession for 16 years. I'm a corrections officer now. My new career is drastically less stressful.
•
[delayed]
•
I like to imagine that they also quit reloading this domain.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
East Germany balloon escape (en.wikipedia.org)
•
Meanwhile in Brazil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelir_Ant%C3%B4nio_de_Carli
•
Wait... People want to escape from communist countries?
•
Remember the GDR called the Berlin Wall the "Antifascist Protection Barrier"
•
Odd how nobody ever builds a balloon to fly towards the communist utopias.
•
One guy did use a plane to land in Red Square. Remember him?
> Strelzyk and Wetzel began research into balloons. Their plan was to escape with their wives and a total of four children (aged 2 to 15). They calculated the weight of the eight passengers and the craft itself to be around 750 kilograms (1,650 lb). That feat would be impossible for the average US family
•
They could each have their own balloon. Your mom would be trapped in East Germany, however.
Although you're probably less inclined to try to escape your country in a hot air balloon if food is so easily and cheaply available that it's made you overweight.
•
Basic food was really cheap in eastern germany as well. But cheap food is not everything.
I'm amazed most of all they were able to keep it under wraps with 4 children involved. I don't think you could pay my children at that age $1 million to keep their mouth shut even under the same risks.
•
I think it's such a crazy idea, even if a 5 year old tell a teacher about it or something, who's going to take the story seriously?
•
I would assume they did not tell them anything at all, until the time was there. And after the first failed attempt, they were probably shocked enough for real to understand the situation and keep their mouths shut. Children put in serious situations are capable of much more serious behavior, than children who have only known comfort and safety.
•
After they found the remains of the balloon from the first escape attempt, the Stasi put out a reward for information, I think everyone would take the story seriously at that point. It was why they decided they had to go through with the second attempt, because they were convinced the Stasi was going to catch them soon. But they had to buy the materials for that balloon after the Stasi had found the remains of their previous attempt.
One good metric of quality of life (which includes various freedoms) is how many people emigrate or immigrate. Anybody who defends authoritarians has to explain why so many people want to leave and why the regime wants to keep them in. (With some exceptions such as China which weaponizes emigrants by threatening their families.)
•
If that's the case the theocratic monarchy in UAE takes the cake, I think, although maybe there are similar amounts elsewhere. Pretty much all the highest % immigration countries are monarchy that I can think of, since in those country another tax payer is an easy win and immigrants that cause problem can be instantly booted so there is very little downside to taking anybody with $1 or a job who cares to come. Top Countries by Percentage of Immigrants (approximate recent figures): Qatar: Around 77% (or 76.7%). United Arab Emirates (UAE): Around 74-88% (some sources show higher figures for earlier years). Kuwait: Around 69-73%. Bahrain: Around 55%. Singapore not far behind (~40% from memory), a one party state but with voting, sometimes described as essentially an elected recallable monarchy. Also note most of those countries have relatively low emigration rates of native citizens.
> East Germany immediately increased border security, closed all small airports close to the border, and ordered the planes kept farther inland.[6] Propane gas tanks became registered products, and large quantities of fabric suitable for balloon construction could no longer be purchased. Mail from East Germany to the two escaped families was prohibited.[12] > Erich Strelzyk learned of his brother's escape on the ZDF news and was arrested in his Potsdam apartment three hours after the landing. The arrest of family members was standard procedure to deter others from attempting escape. He was charged with "aiding and abetting escape", as were Strelzyk's sister Maria and her husband, who were sentenced to 2½ years. The three were eventually released with the help of Amnesty International. People - here in Germany as well as abroad - forget too easily what a sinister but also ridiculous state the GDR was. Authoritarians everywhere belong on the dustpile of history.
•
> Propane gas tanks became registered products I still remember the two gentlemen in their black, faux leather jackets who rang our doorbell and demanded to see our dinghy. (dinghies where registered products too) We showed them our dinghy, they said thank you and left. Probably someone fled over the Baltic sea to Denmark in a dinghy. So the secret police went from door to door until they found someone who could no longer show it to them... This was in the late 80s.
•
> People - here in Germany as well as abroad - forget too easily what a sinister but also ridiculous state the GDR was Wait till you hear how sinister its precursor state was
•
We hear far more about the precursor than the GDR, don't we? (Actually its immediate precursor was Allied Occupied Germany with the GDR being the Soviet zone.)
•
Depends on the form of authoritarian. The two of the richest countries on a GDP PPP basis are Lichtenstein and Singapore, also some of the most free economically, yet they could probably be described as benevolent authoritarian systems. Dubai further behind, although some similar points. It seems authoritarians that know how to use their authority to force the populace to accept (some forms of) freedom can perform better than democracies. To the point the reigning monarch of Lichtenstein is basically a straight up fuedal prince, although one that has a sort of half libertarian/ancap flavor to how he wields power. Yet very few people describe Lichtenstein as a dystopia, it just kind of quietly gets ignored as an example of authoritarian success in both wealth and freedom.
•
That makes sense to me. Authoritarian government is not inherently abusive of citizens, even though it often gets used in rhetoric as though that was the case. It's just that there are no guard rails against the whims of the people in charge, so you better hope you manage to keep good people in charge forever (and that is obviously not going to happen).
Dustpile of history, sure, but gallows first. Bleeding out on the pavement is also acceptable. Way too often, connected ("powerful") people manage to escape proper punishment, sometimes in the name of a "peaceful transition of power".
•
A peaceful transition of power is nothing to sneer at. After a revolutionary change, they are rare.
My elementary school showed the Disney movie about this at least once a year.
•
That movie was also all over the Disney Channel when I was a kid. Many other movies have related messages. And much of the public library books were a couple generations old, plus there was the Cold War, which meant lots of exposure to anti-fascism messages, and to anti-Soviet-like messages. So, today, people of a certain age, who paid attention in school, have been programmed that the secret police saying, "Your papers, please" and sending people off to concentration camps, are obviously the very bad guys, and America is the good guys who don't do that. People with that upbringing would see certain textbook political maneuvers and tactics coming from a mile away, and be concerned. To counteract that IMHO great programming, you'd need something extreme, like Rupert Murdoch and others pounding large swaths of the electorate with propaganda for decades -- to get them to support some politicians that are stereotypes we were told for decades before are outright evil.
Disney made a movie about this called Night Crossing in the early 1980s. More recently, there's a 2018 German movie about it called Balloon. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082810/ [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7125774
•
I watched Night Crossing in my german class in high school. I remember it being intense.
The photo of the balloon here really helps put the story into perspective. https://web.archive.org/web/20190408181736/https://www.museum.bayern/sammlung/geschichten/peter-strezlyk-und-guenter-wetzel.html
•
I keep on thinking it was a lot smaller! Wow!
•
>Ballonfahrt in die Freiheit Gotta love the way German sounds to English ears. Always good for a chuckle. This guy is a hacker hero - do the engineering needed, get the proof of concept built, move fast, break things, start over and go big, then scores a victory over the commies and saves his family.
LWN is currently under the heaviest scraper attack seen yet (social.kernel.org)
•
That makes no sense. There is no reason for AI scrappers to use tens of thousands of IPs to scrape one site over and over. That just sounds like a classic DDOS.
I am starting to think these are not just AI scrapers blindly seeking out data. All kinds of FOSS sites including low volume forums and blogs have been under this kind of persistent pressure for a while now. Given the cost involved in maintaining this kind of widespread constant scraping, the economics don’t seem to line up. Surely even big budget projects would adjust their scraping rates based on how many changes they see on a given site. At scale this could save a lot of money and would reduce the chance of blocking. I haven’t heard of the same attacks facing (for instance) niche hobby communities. Does anyone know if those sites are facing the same scale of attacks? Is there any chance that this is a deniable attack intended to disrupt the tech industry, or even the FOSS community in particular, with training data gathered as a side benefit? I’m just struggling to understand how the economics can work here.
•
>I haven’t heard of the same attacks facing (for instance) niche hobby communities. Does anyone know if those sites are facing the same scale of attacks? They are. I participate in modding communities for very niche gaming projects. All of them experienced massive DDOS attacks from AI scrappers on their websites over the past year. They are long running non-commercial projects that don’t present any business interest to anyone to be worth expending resources purely to bring them offline. They had to temporarily put the majority of their discussion boards and development resources behind a login wall to avoid having to go down completely.
•
> I haven’t heard of the same attacks facing (for instance) niche hobby communities. Does anyone know if those sites are facing the same scale of attacks? Yes. Fortunately if your hobby community is regional you can be fairly blunt in terms of blocks.
Who are these agressive scrapers run by? It is difficult to figure out the incentives here. Why would anyone want to pull data from LWN (or any other site) at a rate which would cause a DDOS like attack? If I run a big data hungry AI lab consuming training data at 100Gb/s it's much much easier to scrape 10,000 sites at 10Mb/s than DDOS a smaller number of sites with more traffic. Of course the big labs want this data but why would they risk the reputational damage of overloading popular sites in order to pull it in an hour instead of a day or two?
•
> If I run a big data hungry AI lab consuming training data at 100Gb/s it's much much easier to... You are incorrectly assuming competency, thoughtful engineering and/or some modicum of care for negative externalities. The scraper may have been written by AI in a few seconds and tested against Wikipedia before being shipped. Whoever the perpetrator is, they are hiding behind "residential IP providers" so there's no reputational risks. Further, AI companies are generally known to engage in distasteful practices, but popular wisdom claims that they make up for the awfulness with utility, so even if it turns out to be a big org like OpenAI or Anthropic, people will shrug their shoulders and move on.
•
Perhaps incompetence instead of malice - a misconfigured or buggy scraper, etc.
•
I've been asking this for a while, especially as a lot of the early blame went on the big, visible US companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. While their incentives are different from search engines (as someone said early on in this onslaught, "a search engine needs your site to stay up; an AI company doesn't"), that's quite a subtle incentive difference. Just avoiding the blocks that inevitably spring up when you misbehave is a incentive the other way -- and probably the biggest reason robots.txt obedience, delays between accesses, back-off algorithms etc are widespread. We have a culture that conveys all of these approaches, and reciprocality has its part, but I suspect that's part of the encouragement to adopt them. It could that they're just too much of a hurry not to follow the rules, or it could be others hiding behind those bot-names (or others). Unsure. Anyway, I think the (currently small[1]) but growing problem is going to be individuals using AI agents to access web-pages. I think this falls under the category of the traffic that people are concerned about, even though it's under an individual users' control, and those users are ultimately accessing that information (though perhaps without seeing the ads that pay of it). AI agents are frequently zooming off and collecting hundreds of citations for an individual user, in the time that a user-agent under manual control of a human would click on a few links. Even if those links aren't all accessed, that's going to change the pattern of organic browsing for websites. Another challenge is that with tools like Claude Cowork, users are increasingly going to be able to create their own, one-off, crawlers. I've had a couple of occasions when I've ended up crafting a crawler to answer a question, and I've had to intervene and explicitly tell Claude to "be polite", before it would build in time-delays and the like (I got temporarily blocked by NASA because I hadn't noticed Claude was hammering a 404 page). The Web was always designed to be readable by humans and machines, so I don't see a fundamental problem now that end-users have more capability to work with machines to learn what they need. But even if we track down and sucessfully discourage bad actors, we need to work out how to adapt to the changing patterns of how good actors, empowered by better access to computation, can browse the web. [1] - https://radar.cloudflare.com/ai-insights#ai-bot-crawler-traffic
•
(and if anyone from Anthropic or OpenAI is reading this: teach your models to be polite when they write crawlers! It's actually an interesting alignment issue that they don't consider the externalities of their actions right now!)
I bet some guy just told Claude Code to archive all of LWN for him on a whim.
•
Can Claude Code even do that? Rather than provide code to do that.
•
Some guy doesn't show up with 10k residential IPs. This is deliberate and organized.
•
LLMs just do be paperclipping
If you can bore an LLM that's exciting.
•
I would rather setup a "shadow" site designed only for LLMs. I would stuff it with ao much insanity that Grok would not be able to leave. How about a billion blog post where every use of "American" is replaced with "Canadian". By the time im done, grok will be spouting conspiracy theories about the decline of the strategic bacon reserve.
> AI allows companies to resell open source code as if they wrote it themselves doing an end run around all license terms. This is a major problem. Has it been adjudicated that AI use actually allows that? That's definitely what the AI bros want (and will loudly assert), but that doesn't mean it's true.
•
I don't think so. Because LLMs aren't legal persons (yet?!), they can neither have copyright to anything nor violate someone else's copyright. IANAL but the most reasonable legal interpretation is likely that any IP violations are actually committed by whoever it was who asked an LLM to "rewrite" something in a way that obviously counts as a derived work rather than a cleanroom implementation.
Scrapers because DDOS implies that it's malicious rather than accidental and there's no reason to think that.
•
Right, so probably the site should not be claiming "It is a DDOS attack".
Sufficiently aggressive and inconsiderate scraping is indistinguishable from a DDOS attack.
•
No scraper seeks to deny the service it needs. And no responsible site operator unable to distinguish should claim DDOS.
I’m going to presume good faith rather than trolling. Some questions for you: 1. Coding assistants have emerged as as one of the primary commercial opportunities for AI models. As GP pointed out, LWN is the primary discussion for kernel development. If you were gathering training data for a model, and coding assistance is one of your goals, and you know of a primary sources of open source development expertise, would you: (a) ignore it because it’s in a quaint old format, or (b) slurp up as much as you can? 2. If you’d previously slurped it up, and are now collating data for a new training run, and you know it’s an active mailing list that will have new content since you last crawled it, would you: (a) carefully and respectfully leave it be, because you still get benefit from the previous content even though there’s now more and it’s up to date, or (b) hoover up every last drop because anything you can do to get an edge over your competitors means you get your brief moment of glory in the benchmarks when you release?
•
I train coding models with RLVR because that's what works. There's ~0.000x good signal in mailing lists that isn't in old mailing lists. (and, since I can't reply to the other person, I mean old as in established, it is in no way a dig to lwn). You seem to be missing my point. There is 0 incentives for AI training companies to behave like this. All that data is already in the common crawls that every lab uses. This is likely from other sources. Yet they always blame big bad AI...
Slop is everywhere for those with eyes to see (fromjason.xyz)
•
And it's just the beginning, I expect around 95 percent of new content will be ai in a few years. From comments to videos to blog posts
•
It’s fast food content. Convenient, cheap, fast, tasty, but also monotonous, unsophisticated, unhealthy, habit-forming. People consume more and more of it until they get sick, and even then won’t stop.
•
Ironically given the topic, the very first sentence on the page ("The size of your plate can influence how much food you eat.") is based on observational research that has not replicated in controlled studies. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2129126/ [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12966-019-0826-1?utm_source=chatgpt.com
•
But where we're going , we don't need eyes to see ...
The thing I hate and this article kind of gets at in a roundabout way is how much slop is encouraged by the algorithm if you are a creator. I've mentioned on this account a bunch of times I'm a very small-scale content creator (4 digit follower count) that has never monetized or really tried to monetize - making content, even if no one or very few people watch it is a hobby I just enjoy whether I make money or not. Recently though it's been pointed out to me in harsh ways I could be easily growing if I tried a little harder, so I've invested more resources into the channel, equipment, actually trying growth, etc. What I have noticed is that the content I make often or usually has to change in ways the FYP algorithm likes, or it will be lost into the ether, no matter how much money I put into it. So in a way the FYP is deciding which content it likes, which affects what creators put out, which to me destroys the entire creative process and makes slop necessary . I deeply resent it, I don't want to participate in it, and a decision inevitably gets made where you have to be like "do I want to get bigger and make money, or do I want to make the content I want to make?" Only the very, very lucky get both if you're on one of these major platforms. One thing I particularly hated was as a twitch partner I notice that if I show ads, more traffic is then driven to my channel. That fundamentally compromises my content IMO. I understand why they as a business would want me to show ads, but I very much do not want to show them. Yes, I can migrate or try to host my own content, so I am accepting this reality by staying, but it wasn't always this way.
•
Could you give some examples? I noticed recently that some of my older accounts would have a higher quality of recommended content. And then within a week or two of using them, it would be back to the same slop as my main account. As far as I can tell this is because I click on what catches my attention. Whatever stands out. Which tends to be the most clickbaity thumbnails. So I have to wonder if what you're actually fighting against is an algorithm, or the human limbic system...
•
> I'm a very small-scale content creator (4 digit follower count) that has never monetized or really tried to monetize To my understanding, that's about the size where platforms will typically consider allowing you to monetize through their system (as opposed to rattling a cup at Patreon, Ko-Fi etc.), and no mean feat (while everyone that people can think of listening to might be at least that size, very few people who try to develop and grow a presence succeed to that extent). Congrats.
There’s a neat little story called "Anecdote on Lowering the work ethic" that you might like. You can read the plot on the Wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbeitsmoral
•
"More reach" seems a valid enough goal/desire in and of itself (even if you deride it as a shallow form of communication, shallow attention is what provides the opportunity for deeper connections); this sets the goal-activity of creative pursuits apart from "lounging alone at the beach" (which is itself a flawed representation of retirement, but that's another story).
I mean sure, this is trivially true, but there's some nuance here. For example, I could find slop in the above threads. Ultimately, while slop, we have to focus on outcomes. If they produce content with some truth in them, they're truthful, regardless of whether an AI agent did or didn't write them. As for 'eyes to see', I think ignorise is bliss here. If a tree falls in a forest, and someone sees it but can't understand the tree has fallen, what's the point discussing the demerits of felling trees?
•
> If they produce content with some truth in them, they're truthful, regardless of whether an AI agent did or didn't write them Nope, they're still slop. Just like a spam message about a product you actually like is still spam.
•
> we have to focus on outcomes I think there's some nuance here... There is an important question that needs to be asked: why is someone watching content? There's a big difference between watching something because they are interested and engaged in the topic vs watching because they're doom scrolling. I'd argue this is an important business question as if it's the latter you're very open to disruption. I think the problem is that many companies have cornered the market and have shifted strategy to wealth extraction. Resting on their laurels. It makes sense from that perspective to trade quality for revenue, as there's no competition, but by doing so you also lower the barrier to entry for competitors while driving demand/motivation for competitors. Striking a balance between aggressive profit maximization and maintaining a cornered market is difficult. The only long term strategy is to play against an imaginary adversary but the short term profit maximization is incredibly tempting. Not to mention highly profitable for those that are at the top before it collapses. Are those people more dedicated to filling their pockets or to the long term survival of the company? It's clearly the former if they do not even consider that the company could lose its dominance. You're right, we should focus on outcomes, but I don't think outcomes are very easy to measure. What outcomes? Over what time frame?
From a personal perspective: I have a niche Instagram account that goes out to find content and then "reposts" it. There were several fun aspects of this e.g. finding good content, writing my own little algorithm to prioritize contents from older posts on smaller accounts etc. Lately, much as others have said, you are seeing entire accounts of AI generated images that are high quality, near photo realistic and consistent e.g. it looks like the same person in different scenes/times of day etc You sometimes hear the quote about "pre-war steel" that hadn't been hit by radiation and that's EXACTLY what it feels like looking for an account with posts from before ~2022. I wonder if the above means that people are going to spend less time online and prioritize "in real life" events or if the slop is just going to get more addicted. Probably a mix of both in the same way that Tough Mudder/Spartan Races became popular while at the same time the number of other people NOT leaving their houses went up.
•
The only missing piece is hiding the time something was posted :) Why would anyone use any of those crap websites is beyond me.
The upshot is that having everything be AI slop could be what breaks our collective addiction to chronic screen time/usage.
•
It certainly offers strong motivation, in my experience, to revisit or commit to analog based hobbies. Recently I did a sewing class at a library. I’ve got a watercolor painting kit for about $30 all in and - as this article indicates - seeking info by surfing the web to use the web as a benefit, well I do recommend it. There still is plenty of information superhighway infrastructure online - more than ever! It’s a matter of disengaging from the AI “slop trough” as I like to call it. Good article framing the discussion.
•
A large number of extremely smart people are being paid ungodly amounts of money to enhance the addictiveness of AI output. I'm not optimistic about them failing.
One might say the same about HN comments.
•
How dare you!
Glad to see someone fighting the good fight, no matter how lost the battle is online. I'd add: your/you’re who’s/whose were/we’re/where to/too/two are/our then/than lose/loose wary/weary affect/effect aloud/allowed definitely/defiantly complement/compliment flout/flaunt When people make these kinds of vocabulary mistakes, I like to at least charitably assume that English is their second language, but I've seen my kid's teachers make these mistakes, too...
•
Don't forget the worst offender: its/it's
I used to feel similarly whenever people would say "begs the question" to mean "raises a question." But now I've just given up. It's more common for people to mess this one up than not.
•
[delayed]
DuckDuckGo is asking for a Yes or No vote on AI (duckduckgo.com)
•
Predictably, most people who use ddg will vote "no ai". I don't even know exactly what that means, does it just mean ai-assisted results? What's the harm in having them generated, but you click a button or expand a collapsed div/section/box to see what is if you're interested. I get the AI-hate but its unreasonable and emotionally charged application is harmful I think. I wanted to say "lots of people" like AI search results, but it turns out I am lots of people. I have DDG on almost every browser I use, but for a while now, most of my ddg searches include '!g' to go to google for AI results. I don't really want to spend hours trying different things manually, "how do I do X", the AI result quality is objectively good for the things I search for. Do you want this product to be a niche product used by a small number of people or not? That's the question really. And there is nothing wrong with wanting that so long as DDG can sustain the product that way. No need for "one size fits all". But if your aim with DDG is to have a viable competitor to mainstream search engines, then opposing AI search results (despite DDG taking pains to make sure they're not intrusive or privacy-hostile) seems counter-productive. If someone could articulate for me the hatred for AI, even when you're getting good enough results (are people claiming google search AI result are worse than stackoverflow for example?), I'd really appreciate it. Maybe it's a difference in expectations? I don't expect it to solve things for me, just make it easier to do so. "Give me an example in $language of how I can use this package", boom, I have a good valid example. "How do I troubleshoot error <the error>", boom, a list of really good troubleshooting steps. I don't even have to sign-in, or pay anything, why would anyone oppose this? I feel like I should be opposing it but I'm being ignorant on some topic.
•
Hi from DuckDuckGo: whoops, you found this early! Launch is Monday — pulling the link until then but pls come back and continue the conversation.
"Yes AI or No AI?" What's the actual question? What am I answering? How is this measured? What are the consequences?
•
This question screams "I know what I mean, but haven't considered that other people might not have the same context I do". Seems like it's not an important vote but a marketing gimmick which only makes sense after you answer one way or another. I would expect people's preferences depend on how invasive and how much control there is- Do I want AI to have unfettered access to my filesystem? No. Do I want AI to create useful regex snippets for me? Yes. Interesting to see that 96% of "voters" went NO, though it's hard to tell what that actually means in terms of their preferences, given the question is so vague.
The wealth of the top 1% reaches a record $52T (2025) (cnbc.com)
•
IMO, the issue of 1% wealth is not an ethical one. I don't care how much money anyone makes, I don't think it's unethical for some people to have more and some people to have less. But, when we get to these scales, where a very small number of individuals controls large amounts of social resources, it becomes a society-wide efficiency issue. Solitary individuals cannot allocate capital as well as large collections of people can. A thriving startup ecosystem is better than a single person picking winners and losers. When you have individuals controlling huge swathes of resources, you get weird outcomes, like the Metaverse or WeWork or the Line. These things are monumental wastes of human effort, and they naturally arise when the distribution of wealth becomes too extreme. And it gets worse and worse when they begin suppressing private enterprise by leveraging the state, which is certainly already happening (see: tech execs paying $1m to stand behind DJT at the inauguration). I don't care about the individual "The 1%". I don't care who they are, how craven and greedy, how creepy, how ugly, how disgusting. I don't care whether they are going to heaven or hell. What I care about is that they are burning vast amounts of human potential on things that don't benefit anyone at all. They're wasting huge amounts of time. I think about this every time I have to wait 3h on hold with a huge, bloated, inefficient corporation, whose owner spends a quarter of their time schmoozing in Washington D.C: a startup should be there competing , preventing me from wasting my time!
•
Reminds me of one of my favorite resources that explains wealth distribution. Not sure when it was last updated, but the visualization using stacks of bills is nice. https://lcurve.org/
In that case, isn't the correct analysis how much money is borrowed? If Musk is borrowing $500 million, that won't fund the government very long.
•
What should probably happen is the gains on any stock used for collateral in a loan are automatically realized for tax purposes.
This headline formulation is statistical malpractice that news companies do to get clicks. It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. What we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution of the total wealth among groups, which the article touches upon here: > The top 1% held 29% of total household wealth in the second quarter, compared with 28% in 2000. > The top 10% held 67% of total household wealth in the quarter while the bottom 90% held 33%.
•
If you're interested, the federal reserve has a page tracking that kind of information over time: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart
If somebody is making $400,000/year, they're contributing a little over $100,000 in income taxes. You don't think that's a fair share?
•
If you ask the 50% of the US public that makes $50,000 / year (median US individual income) or less whether paying more than twice they make in income taxes, leaving six times what they make as after-tax income, is a fair share, what do you think they are going to say? Your response and the sibling are exactly what I'm talking about: " Eat the rich but of course we don't mean us! " If you think the proletariat is not going to see right through that, think again.
Our approach to advertising (openai.com)
•
To the people trying to read between the lines here, do you think OpenAI cares about what they said or didn't say and won't do a 180 if it means more profits? Like a blog post will stop them?
•
I think they realize the end of their moat has come. I see 5.2 doesn't try as hard and gives worse answers. I don't like Elon, but I've found Grok to be better on many questions.
•
I already don't use ChatGPT. I use OpenWeb UI with OpenRouter, and the API costs for my usage are peanuts. Switching to a different interface is so easy many people will. (You don't need to self host. T3 Chat, for example.) This is the difference between Google Search and ChatGPT.
•
Well, I draw the line here. If I see an ad, or feel like I'm being sold an advert in my chat with ChatGPT I am canceling.
•
This seems bad for OpenAI. If ads are the way to profitability, Google has a 25 year head-start.
•
I remember when I was defending openai for still being relatively open because they are not gatekeeping tech advancements made in model training or inference, but their patent count is shooting up and I am sure the next revolution they will discover will get patented as well. Having the name OpenAI will feel so weird in a couple more years when it'll be the complete opposite with no way to justify the "open" in their name.
•
This is merely the first step. The next step is to have them natively in the output. And it'll happen at a scale never seen. Google had a lot more push-back, because they used to be the entity that linked to other websites, so them showing the AI interview was a change of path. OpenAI embedding the advertisements in a natural way is much much easier for them. The public already expects links to products when they ask for advice, so why not change the text a little bit to glorify a product when you're asking for a comparison between product A & B.
Seems like a big opportunity for Google to consider keeping Gemini ad-free as a differentiator. They can afford to burn cash on it for a long time to come if they choose to do so.
•
All enterprise users already pay for it. They’ve included it by force to the base subscription (and about 30% of our company actively uses it, according to in-app stats as an admin).
I question whether it matters any more. AI chat is clearly going to be the search interface of the future. phones are the channel for users with Chrome/android being one half and iphone being the other. Google just signed up Apple to be the engine for siri. We also know that users rarely change defaults. so, google would appear to have boxed out openai from the #1 use case, and already have all the pieces in place to monetize it. This move by OAI isnt surprising, but is it too late to matter?
•
I'm not sure your logic connects. With respect to "OpenAI being boxed out from [Siri]", advertisement revenue comes neither too late nor too early. Whether or not OpenAI had advertising would not have substantially affected Apple's decision to go with Google's LLM at this time. If you meant it in a different context, you didn't explain any of the actual context you had in mind.
I think Google has already shown that in the long run, people accept ads and prefer them to paying a subscription fee. If that weren’t true, then YouTube Premium would have double-digit % of youtube users and Kagi Search would be huge.
•
The difference here is the qualitative difference that has existed between Google Search results and other competitors. Switching away from Google Search is a high friction move for most people. I'm not sure the same goes for AI chat.
YouTube premium being $14 a month is a scam. I very much doubt that they earn $14/month out of my ad viewing.
•
That includes a YouTube Music subscription. Given Spotify premium is $13/m, you're only paying $1 extra for ad free YouTube, which is the greatest $1 I've spent.
•
The problem that providers like Youtube have with the "pay to remove ads" model is that the people with enough disposable income that they're willing to pay $14/month to remove ads are the same demographic of people that advertisers are willing to pay the most to show ads to. It's the same reason why if you watch TV during the middle of the day, the ads are all for medicine (paid for by your insurance), personal injury attorneys, (paid for by the person you're suing), and cash advances for structured settlements (i.e. if you already have a settlement paying $500/mo for 30 years but you'd rather have $20,000 now) rather than for anything you actually have to buy.
If you had told me in 2011, when I first started discussing artificial intelligence, that in 2026 a trillion dollar company would earnestly publish the statement “Our mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity; our pursuit of advertising is always in support of that mission”, I would have tossed my laptop into the sea and taken up farming instead.
•
In 2011 I would've had trouble believing there could be a trillion dollar AI company, but that if there was such a company I could almost expect they would make such an asinine statement.
What ought to be the punishment for falling for the line that paying for something means no ads?
•
Who says we're falling for it? I expect it, as in I believe that's how it should be. I know that offerings can change and that there are paid services that include ads. I know what I'm getting if I sign up for a paid plan with ads. I also think anyone who offers such a thing should be publicly flogged.
It often seems that beginning advertising is not the first step on a slipperly slope. Not having a plan to avoid advertising is the first slipperly step. This is due to having so many examples that not having advertising is the first step to having advertising, and that having advertising will be optimized for profit, and frustrate users.
•
I think the problem is that advertising is one of the few areas where you can scale revenue without the user’s permission. Once you start depending on it, there’s always pressure to beat last quarter’s numbers and it’s easy to tell yourself that users don’t care, and the heat if any arrives years later.
"Ads are always separate and clearly labeled." I've heard this before...
•
These promises are worth nothing without a contract that a consumer can sue them for violating. And hell will freeze over before megacorps offer consumers contracts that bind themselves to that degree.
while we can't trust their word as absolute truth, they did specifically say they still not do this in the article
•
Oh, you sweet summer child. Promises like these are made to be broken. They would need a mechanism for contractual or regulatory enforcement for these words to carry any weight at all. 0: "Every ad on Google is clearly marked and set apart from the actual search results." https://archive.md/fiK4E#selection-219.13-219.95 1: "Every Google result now looks like an ad" (which means every ad looks like a search result) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22107823 2: "Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6605312 OpenAI already has a growing list of their own broken promises, which is impressive for such a young company: 3: (2024) "OpenAI is developing Media Manager, a tool that will enable creators and content owners to tell us what they own and specify how they want their works to be included or excluded from machine learning research and training." https://openai.com/index/approach-to-data-and-ai/ 4: (2023) "OpenAI promised 20% of its computing power to combat existential risks from AI — but never delivered" https://fortune.com/2024/05/21/openai-superalignment-20-compute-commitment-never-fulfilled-sutskever-leike-altman-brockman-murati/ 5: (2025) "REPORT: The OpenAI Files Document Broken Promises" https://techoversight.org/2025/06/18/openai-files-report/
•
They aren't going to do this right now, but they almost certainly will in the medium term. It would be legitimately shocking if they didn't continue to follow the same path as Google, Facebook, and pretty much every other big tech comp. In OpenAI's case they have even more incentive to abuse their users since they collect so much detailed personable data and have ways to make ads unblockable by including them in outputs and skewing model weights. I've seen absolutely nothing from the company, it's CEO, or investors that make me think they won't do the normal thing of gradually making the product worse in order to wring more value out of their users.
Emoji Use in the Electronic Health Record is Increasing (jamanetwork.com)
•
I've noticed the same thing for LinkedIn, etc corporate communications. All of a sudden every CEO and marketing leader is packing them in.
•
So healthcare workers are using chatgpt to write messages for patients and to summarize appointment notes? Given what I see at my workplace I can completely believe this.
Emoji use was stable from 2020-2024, then spiked in 2025. The authors don't attempt to explain it, but I bet AI is to blame. Anyone who has had to clean up AI comments riddled with stupid emojis from their code will understand this.
•
I’ve wondered why GenAI text has so many emojis, for example in README.md bullet points. I guess their RLHF data had it? On purpose? And various labs all the same? Because if they were just learning from web data (pre- a few years ago), this didn’t seem to be very prevalent.
STFU (github.com/Pankajtanwarbanna)
The idea that 12 lines of vibe coded JavaScript prompted because someone was too scared to talk to someone disturbing him (but not enough to take a creep shot and blast him on Twitter) could make it to the top post of this website is quite sad.
•
And twitter was just a static page you could post 140 character messages to.
Indian-American here. Thank you for this! I have hearing sensitivity and have repeatedly asked my parents to lower the volume on TVs, whatsapp videos, insta reels 100s of times. They always lower it for 5 minutes before raising it back. Likely because they are losing their hearing, but unable to admit that. I tend to be very mindful of others (maybe because I grew up in America), but my parents are not even mindful of my requests. Maybe it's a cultural thing? I expect those who have grown-up (or spent their whole lives) in India would do the same. Definitely need to test this out app out when I go home.
•
On the flip side, people with hearing sensitivity are the most god awful people to deal with. It’s like the entire world has to quiet down for them when they could just as easily put in ear plugs instead.
This is a fun app. One way I deal with people talking on speakerphone, is inviting myself into their conversation and making comments as if I were an active participant. That usually earns me a weird look, and then they go off speaker so I can't hear what's been said. Success. Similar with folks watching reels on speaker, I fake a laugh or make comments about the content. It's awkward enough that they usually stop because they want a moment alone, not an interactive session with a stranger. Which ironically is the same thing I want too.
•
A friend of mine works AV at shows that have rotating DJs and one of the things she has on her mixer board is "The Suck Button." It causes a mic at the other end of the room to get cut into the DJ's live feed monitor with a semitone shift down and some reverb. This causes all sorts of inner-ear chaos and usually clears a DJ off the stage when they're over time within a few minutes at most -- usually under 30 seconds. One time they were trying to figure out why it wasn't working and discovered that the DJ had muted their monitor feed, which explained why they were not only peaking the meters but over time: They hadn't heard the FOUR warnings from the back of house that it was time to wrap up.
•
There was a coffee shop ages ago in SF that would every few hours play a cacophony (e.g. multiple songs at once). I assume it was to drive away people camping on their laptops to rotate tables. Understand but super annoying to people like me who had a timer to but food or drink no less than hourly to be a good citizen
How is that different than two people talking in person? Do you interrupt them as well?
•
Do you think having your conversation on speakerphone in public is the same as talking to someone?
•
A half conversation is a lot more disruptive because your brain try to fill in the gap of information.
•
Yup. Online too! I have no qualms about adding my two cents to any loud public conversations.
It's my fantasy to do this. Congrats on having the courage.
•
My friend does this and I feel the same way. I could never bring myself to do this, I cant even smile at people
I have do idea about DC but I don't trust crime rate stats - a lot might be unreported. In NYC last year someone burnt someone else to death while they sat, relaxed and watched, and in a seperate incident a person died died and someone else had sex with them afterwards. It could that be crime is lower or it could be that insane brutality has become normalized.
•
But do you have reason to believe that crime is reported less often now than in the past?
And there it is. It's exactly as I suspected. The only people spreading the toxic advice about HR are the ones who benefit most from making the workplace suck for everyone else. I can only hope you just think HR is there to insulate you this way and haven't had to test it, because it simply isn't. You really don't want to be on the losing end of a wrongful termination suit. It's only because people rarely bother that you may not have come across one of those. Then it then escalates to worse when all of HR spills their guts about the pressure they were under to protect higher ups. There is no loyalty after all. It's just a job to everyone else.
•
HR insulates me and the rest of the heavy hitters from people like you. It's a Godsend, obviously. Surveilling co-workers in the bathroom is more than sufficient grounds for dismissal - gross misconduct.
I might be in a minority saying this - and particularly so here on HN - but I struggle to understand why you'd be willing to use a tool like this, as OP did, but not to politely ask someone to keep it down?
•
Seriously, this is as easy as tapping the dude next door and telling him to tone that volume down. Negative social skills on that Twitter thread
I mean, he took a picture of the guy posted it on his twitter calling him a 'fat uncle'. I don't think he cares about being polite.
•
Real courageous from that guy calling someone a "fat uncle" on a Twitter thread. Could've applied that same energy IRL and told him to tone it down.
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!! I've not done this, and I don't think I would ever do this, but I can sympathize with having the idea that they don't want to be so isolated from nature so as to have headphones blocking out the sounds of the world around them dampened, but also feel like it would be super sweet if they could listen to Bowie right now. It's also been shown that having music reduces the feeling of loneliness, having similar effects to having had a conversation recently, so if a person is hiking along perhaps it offers them companionship? _If_ I ever did this (I wouldn't) I'd probably have it down to a whisper such that you would hardly be able to make it out unless you were right beside me.
•
When you are hiking there is actually a ton of noise/songs to listen to. Especially birds.
Sometimes I would really rather not have the outside world isolated or noise cancelled while I'm listening to music... so I sorta get it? But also, for all the reasons described, I just use transparency modes if I want that. That way nobody else has to hear my poor taste in music.
•
There are so many types of headphones that don't isolate much, including the cheapest crappy on-ears from the walkman era, there's really no excuse. And on the few occasions where I've had no other option, it made so much more sense to set my phone to low volume and bring it close to my ear instead of holding it iut and maxing the volume. And if I need to talk as well, many people don't know this, but there's a second smaller speaker on the opposite end of the phone, approximately one mouth-ear distance away from the microphone.
Secondhand smoke is toxic and physically damages your body and enters your bloodstream. Someone playing music is annoying and does not physically harm you in any way. These are not remotely the same thing. There is a clear bright line between them.
•
Unwanted noise affect stress level which has an impact in health. It is not just harmless annoyance and not everyone is equal in that regard.
In potentially-dangerous-animal country (e.g. grizzly bears, mountain lions, etc), it could be a safety mechanism...I was told repeatedly you need to make some kind of distinctive noise regularly so they won't get startled by you rounding a bend.
•
That's what "bear bells" are for...in bear country. Mountain lions are avoidant at all times unless it's a mother with cubs and even then they'll let you know well in advance. Otherwise, just normal conversation, your smell with even a light breeze, and the vibrations on-trail will alert all animals to your presence. In other words, the "trail music" theory is bullshit. They just want to listen to their music.
> Maybe go without headphones and pay attention to your surroundings instead. This. Even when you are seemingly quiet on a trail, 90% of wildlife are hiding from you. It’s amazing what happens when you stop and sit in complete silence for 5-10 minutes — a whole hidden world comes alive around you. 10/10, highly recommend. > I have zero patience for such excuses from people who choose to impose their preferences on other people. This as well. Somewhere along the way, civics teachings in America’s school left folks w/ the impression that the spirit of our liberty is, “It’s a free country, I can do what I want!”, rather of, “I have the liberty to pursue happiness, up until it infringes on the liberty for others to do so.”
•
This is domething I realized riding my MTB by night in the forests in the mountains. Thanks to the reflection of all those eyes staring at your headlight you realize the sheer amount of wildlife there is hidden a few meters from you.
I can't stand the way earbuds feel. That's why I wear over-the-ear headphones or bone-conducting headphones. There are so many options for personal audio. Even if you're truly allergic to all of them, that doesn't give you the right to inflict your noise on others. Imagine if everyone decided they were entitled to play their music on speakers. The result would be a cacophony where nobody can hear their own music and life is worse for everyone. People who play music in public spaces are claiming a common resource for their own exclusive use. Sincerely - someone who's lived with 7 other people in a 3-bedroom house.
•
Nobody is forced to listen/watch stuff anyway. If you don't have the mean to do it quietly, you can just abstain yourself from doing it.
I can sympathize with this, but 1) earbuds are not the only headphone style 2) listening to speakers is not a necessity. So fine if you don't want to use earbuds, but not necessarily fine to annoy those around you with music/talk shows or whatever sounds you want to introduce to the enviroment.
•
3) "I don't like this" / "I don't wanna" is not really an acceptable reason to be an antisocial ass.
I bet it's by design. If you actually make things pleasant you might accidentally create a third place and no one can profit from that!
•
To be contrarian: If people are comfortable they stick around and keep ordering more stuff.
•
If people are uncomfortable, they can predict how often they can turn the table over and get another party in there.
Canada slashes 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs to 6% (electrek.co)
•
I am not sure this is a good move. They have the option to align closer with the EU. But let's see. Canada may also break apart: https://globalnews.ca/news/11615147/alberta-separatists-praise-turnout-petition-signing/
> The US killed a million Iraqis not that long ago. There are an estimated 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps currently [1], but you are correct - neither that, nor the invasion of Tibet, nor whatever process they used to turn a diverse part of a continent into a Han ethnostate [2], or block the NYTimes app from their phones, involved dropping bombs on foreign soil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China [2] Spare me the "56 different ethnic groups!" - 91% is Han, the next highest is 1.4%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China
•
There are ~ 2 million black men incarcerated in the united states, many engaging in what is effectively modern slavery. I don't think we can effectively weight human rights atrocities between nations, but the U.S. is certainly not "better" than China in many respects.
The two-party system is fine. We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote. The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life. But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
•
The efficacy of US democracy has eroded over time, and it's clear we're going to need reforms to preserve democratic governance for future generations. Every branch of the federal government has experienced a decline in democratic accountability. The House is so gerrymandered that only 10% of seats are remotely competitive each year, and it hasn't kept up with population growth. The Senate is permanently gerrymandered, with state population differences that are far more disproportionate than what was originally designed for and intended when the Constitution was written. This combined with hyper-partisanship prevents the US from accepting new states like Washington DC (population 700,000+) and Puerto Rico (population 3.2 million), depriving millions of US citizens from Congressional representation (no, non-voting representatives don't count). The Supreme Court has become hyperpartisan, and appointments are a high stake circus that rely on arbitrary retirements and deaths. They need to be elected at this point to preserve democratic legitimacy. As for the Presidency... the Electoral College has resulted in the election of the loser of a popular vote twice in 25 years. I don't know how reform will happen, or if we'll ever see it in my lifetime but we desperately need it. The US government needs to be accountable to the people again. Democracy is precious, and it's so tragic to see how much it's declined.
•
> The two-party system is fine. Is it? Many western countries are having more or less prominent populist right wing movements, and the two countries I can think of where that movement has gotten its hand in power on really significant issues during the last decade or so are UK and US. Both strongly two party systems at the time of the "interesting" developments. And I do not think a two party system is typical, I am sure there are some countries happily trodding along with their two political parties, but they are not the rule.
Designed means exactly that I meant: today ICE is designed (meant to) beat up anyone in the US. When ICE agents kill people, they get immunity from the feds (that guy who shot Renee Good will not see a day in prison). If my comment led you to a conclusion that I support "Defund ICE" you would be correct. All of this to show you that my understanding of the work designed is correct.
•
> Designed means exactly that I meant ... designed (meant to) ... > All of this to show you that my understanding of the work [sic] designed is correct. All right, I see what's going on here. You just don't know what the word designed means. To illustrate: if went to the hardware store to buy a claw hammer and meant to use it to murder someone, which you then did, does that mean the claw hammer was "designed" to murder people? No, of course not. The hammer was designed to install and remove nails. It can also be used for other purposes for which it was not meant for , such as murder (as hypothetical you showed), but it was not designed for those purposes. You're not Humpty Dumpty, words don't mean whatever you choose them to mean. The "defund the police" people thought they could do that, and look where that got us. If you disagree, find me the design documents for ICE (they're surely public), and show me where it says it's "designed to beat up anyone in the US." Remember that's not going to be a Trump executive order, because time machines aren't real. > If my comment led you to a conclusion that I support "Defund ICE" you would be correct. And I guarantee you that even if you do that, some other agency will be tasked with what ICE was designed to do.
•
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
So get those people on transit and leave trucks to people who use them as trucks.
•
I don't understand why you think I disagree with that.
The announced limit doesn't seem like enough volume for BYD to roll out a dealership network, but maybe they do it in anticipation of higher limits in the future. Volvo could be an immediate beneficiary. The Canadian EX30 was going to be cheaper because they could make them in China, but after the 100% US/Canada tariff was announced they had to switch to ones produced in Belgium iirc. edit: Something I just read that I haven't seen reported elsewhere is that the imported EVs have to cost $33,000 or less. The EX30 currently starts at about $54,000, so... maybe not.
•
Ironically one of the biggest beneficiary will likely be Tesla. Before the 100% tarriffs were instated Tesla-Canada imported most of their vehicles from China's Shanghai gigafactory. After the Chinese EV tarriffs they began importing from Germany and some from the US. They already have the footprint and sales depth to take advantage of the low tarriffs rate quickly.
For starters they can sell EVs at a profit, a feat which I believe only Tesla has managed among the US manufacturers.
•
[delayed]
Launch HN: Indy (YC S21) – A support app designed for ADHD brains (shimmer.care)
•
I appreciate the effort. I'll give you my honest two cents. If you don't have thick skin, stop reading here. I'm going to be critical, and I'm going to be blunt. You can take it or leave it. The landing page sucks. In my first impression my eyes immediately darted to the animated graphics/webms. The text reads like it was written by AI with the sentences in triplets everywhere. Immediately my trust for this site (which was finicky at first) has already gone down. If you can't sustain my attention in the banner, what makes me think you can sustain my attention for the app? Be direct - show me what your app does at a glance. My attention is very scarce and very expensive, don't waste it on vague niceties or depend on me to trust you on what you say other people are saying about your app. I feel like you're trying to cheat me out of own autonomy when you're selling me something (even if it's free, my time = money) that I have no idea what it does until I get to the FAQ. My 2c - put the FAQ in the very top, with the questions "Is this just another AI chatbot?" and "How does Indy fit with ADHD coaching or other support?" in order with minimized distractions. This tells me what your product is and what it isn't at face value.
The only thing that reliably works is co-working with another human. This is hard to find and not always possible. The reason it works is that it triggers the "empathy brain," which transfers the importance of the person to the importance of the task. Having an invested person always at your command is impossible, and an AI robot simply doesn't trigger that same empathy. It costs three cents per interaction. It is a robot. It isn't important, no matter how advanced it is. There is something fascinating yet defeating about how the ADHD brain craves human connection. Just as loneliness can’t be solved by an app, ADHD cannot be "app-ed" out. I have found that these systems can lighten the cognitive load, but that is their limit. I have a vibed chief-of-staff personal system. It knows everything and it neatly mapped out my state and day. I even know the first simple task I need to do because a prompt organized it for me on another page. Yet, I would still rather write this comment here. You already know this at some level, too.
•
> The only thing that reliably works is co-working with another human. I found this didnt really do anything for me. > ADHD cannot be "app-ed" out. I have found significant success with Kanban. To the point where at times, I can even go unmedicated and still somewhat progress. With medication I might as well be superhuman. Something about the WIP limit, the way I structure it so that I can see the timeframes (Next month, next week, today etc) and the moving of tasks from left to right really clicked with my brain. It's been the most successful intervention in terms of my treatment in the entirety of my existence.
I’m an adult with combined type ADHD. I feel very strongly that any device which has other apps is a terrible tool for ADHD management and organization. No matter how well intentioned, and I know that you are. One needs to spend less time on devices. Go analogue. Pen and paper. The best tool that I have found is the Bullet Journal Method . It takes time, effort, and there is a learning curve. The ROI is higher than from any app. No other tool has impacted my life and productivity more. That said, I have found some tertiary apps to be helpful, though my BuJo is my compass. Endel for time boxing/Pomodoro, and sleep. Headspace for guided meditation. No, it doesn’t have to be aesthetic, with pretty lettering and doodles (as seen in social media).
•
> I feel very strongly that any device which has other apps is a terrible tool for ADHD management and organization. I strongly disagree. While that approach may work for you, it did not work for me. I do not believe there is a one size fits all approach in this regard. My limitation is far more on the executive side than it is with distractibility or addiction, my devices present no sigificant negative impact in that regard. > One needs to spend less time on devices. Go analogue. Pen and paper. The best tool that I have found is the Bullet Journal Method. That may be true for you, but device usage itself is not a problem for me. I spent significant time attempting bullet journaling and found it ineffective, it increased cognitive overhead and time spent managing the system rather than executing tasks. Additionally, handwriting based systems are not well suited to me due to motor limitations from an incomplete spinal cord injury. I use a single Kanban board in Trello to manage my entire life. It works precisely because it is digital. Always accessible, frictionless, and available wherever I am. For me, that constant availability is essential. > The ROI is higher than from any app. For you, perhaps. For me, adopting a Kanban based digital system was life changing. As you suggested of your own system, no other tool has had a greater positive impact on my organisation or productivity than Trello. The only thing which has had even remotely the same level of impact is medication.
adhd here, too, including asperger. seconded: A huge intro post, like a text wall. That's everything an adhd person is trying to avoid. Started the app. A couple of "motivational speeches". Asking some questions I don't even understand. Answered randomly, just to see what the app is offering. At the end: account required. That's where you first lost me. So I tried the website. First sentence just some sale-pitch-speech: > Built from lessons learned after 80,000+ ADHD coaching sessions, Indy gives you the structure you need, daily support that keeps you accountable, and momentum you can actually sustain. On the right some nothing-saying screenshot. Scrolling down. More text. Buzzword-Bingo. "Journey". "Build a vision." "Stop dreaming about your future. Start building it." Great, another one of those catchy, fancy offers pretending to help you. Another pretty website from the default vercel-ish website-builder. No offense - perhaps it's my asperger. This does not seem helpful at all. Maybe it is. Then it's on me. I need clear, focussed messages. No noise. No modern interface. Form follows function. Not the other way around.
•
This comment might seem harsh, but this feedback is gold. I agree completely, matched my experience reading through the page, and I was diagnosed in my mid-40s with ADHD. I wonder if the folks doing marketing are neurotypical, but they are trying to target a population that's neurodivergent? Just spitballing since I have no info, but an interesting topic.
6-Day and IP Address Certificates Are Generally Available (letsencrypt.org)
Mr Ramanujan, I presume?
•
I was hoping Wolfram|Alpha would spit out the above, but on just entering 160 [1], we get > A regular 160-gon is constructible with straightedge and compass. > 160 has a representation as a sum of 2 squares: 160 = 4^2 + 12^2 > 160 is an even number. > 160 has the representation 160 = 2^7 + 32. > 160 divides 31^2 - 1. > 160 = aa_15 repeats a single digit in base 15. [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=160
It's actually 6 and 2/3rds! I'm trying to figure out a rationale for 160 hours and similarly coming up empty, if anyone knows I'd be interested. 200 would be a nice round number that gets you to 8 1/3 days, so it comes with the benefits of weekly rotation.
•
I chose 160 hours. The CA/B Forum defines a "short-lived" certificate as 7 days, which has some reduced requirements on revocation that we want. That time, in turn, was chosen based on previous requirements on OCSP responses. We chose a value that's under the maximum, which we do in general, to make sure we have some wiggle room. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1715455 is one example of why. Those are based on a rough idea that responding to any incident (outage, etc) might take a day or two, so (assuming renewal of certificate or OCSP response midway through lifetime) you need at least 2 days for incident response + another day to resign everything, so your lifetime needs to be at least 6 days, and then the requirement is rounded up to another day (to allow the wiggle, as previously mentioned). Plus, in general, we don't want to align to things like days or weeks or months, or else you can get "resonant frequency" type problems. We've always struggled with people doing things like renewing on a cronjob at midnight on the 1st monday of the month, which leads to huge traffic surges. I spend more time than I'd like convincing people to update their cronjobs to run at a randomized time.
You're not thinking creatively enough. I'm only interested in ESP, not IKE. Consider having the TLS handshake negotiate the use of ESP, and when selected the system would plumb ESP for this connection using keys negotiated by TLS (using the exporter). Think ktls/kssl but with ESP. Presto -- no orchestration of IKE credentials, nothing -- it should just work. The real key is getting ESP HW offload.
•
Oh I agree with it being nice, I'm just imagining more socialization oriented resistance to implementation and both large organizations and hobbyists already have answers that mostly cover the use cases even if not exactly as cleanly. Moving node to node encryption to an accelerated implementation of transport mode would be great, but if you're already using TLS I can see people just sticking in TLS versus hoping both ends had the necessary handshake->ESP path working, plus people are more experienced with existing troubleshooting, etc.
>so still no way to support TLS for LAN devices without manual setup or angering security researchers. Arguably setting up letsencrypt is "manual setup". What you can do is run a split-horizon DNS setup inside your LAN on an internet-routable tld, and then run a CA for internal devices. That gives all your internal hosts their own hostname.sub.domain.tld name with HTTPS. Frankly: it's not that much more work, and it's easier than remembering IP addresses anyway.
•
> run a CA > easier than remembering IP addresses idk, the 192.168.0 part has been around since forever. The rest is just a matter of .12 for my laptop, .13 for the one behind the telly, .14 for the pi, etc. Every time I try to "run a CA", I start splitting hairs.
What worries me more about the push for shorter and shorter cert terms instead of making revoking that works is that if provider fails now you have very little time to switch to new one
•
This is a two-sided solution, and one significant reason for shorter certificate lifetimes helps make revocation work better.
Not sure what the exact concern is here. So far, virtually all countries on Earth are still represented in DNS. Venezuela, Iran, Somalia, etc etc. You can also read a lot of anti-Trump articles and comments on countless web-sites, some under .com and some under other top-domains. As lunatic as Trump is, he hasn’t shut that down. “Is the TLD root management really split up vertically” AFAIK, yes, it is. But if the global DNS would somehow break down I guess you either have to find an alternative set of root servers. Or communicate outside of the regular Internet. Such an event surely would shock the global economy.
•
That's actually a really good point. Totally missed it.
 Top