Unlurker|Replay|About
Sony Boss Urges Theaters to Stop 30 Minutes of Trailers and Ads Before Movies (variety.com)
•
could they also ask United to stop showing me ads after the safety video? thanks.
•
Even better: allow theaters to charge different prices to different movies. It's ridiculous that a big budget action movie with A-list cast costs the same to watch as a cheap indie film. Smaller movies could get a huge boost if they cost less to see than the big franchise releases, and the difference in filled vs empty seats would really add up.
•
I just went and saw Project Hail Mary last week and I was all worried I'd be late after navigating the parking situation, arriving at 7:35 for a 7:30 show. My worry was needless as after the ads and previews the actual show didn't start until 8:15! I could have even stopped and gotten popcorn instead of rushing in afraid I'd missed the beginning of the film.
Gas Town: From Clown Show to v1.0 (steve-yegge.medium.com)
•
The original Beads, it seems, used my CGO-free SQLite driver. Seems like I'm back to obscurity. :)
•
> But no need to wait. At a high level, Gas City is the answer to all your problems. Ha! At least, for certain classes of problem, such as, “How can I bring AI into my company and pass an audit trail,” The important audit at my company is conducted by the FDA. I have a feeling when they ask what processes we followed to mitigate any user harm that could be caused by software changes that "I told an AI-mayor in the form of a cartoon fox what to do and he spit out a bunch of vibecode software written by AI-driven virtual cartoon characters" is not among the answers they want to hear.
•
Does anyone has any tips for starting with Gastown? I am comfortable with couple of agents running, but not yet comfortable with what Gastown offers.
•
Serious question - there's a lot of fluff talking about Gas Town, but has Gas Town shipping something in public that can be evaluated without all of this surrounding hype and blogposting? At this point it should be clear that Gas Town has done something we can evaluate the value of.
•
you can always fire it up yourself and see what its all about. in my experience it generates a lot of code very quickly, that code is probably only ever supposed to be LLM maintained, not by people.
•
I don't think the op meant Gas Town itself (if they did, my bad), but what has Yegge done with Gas Town? By now it should have released some amazing thing if Gas Town increases productivity so much.
•
I loved Beads, but kept running into issues because it is so git heavy. One: not every system and project I work on uses git. Two: Sometimes I'd switch branches, and that would screw up Beads state entirely. Three: And this is at least last I used it, there's no safety net, Claude would close a Bead, without validating anything. I wound up building my own with Claude, I made it SQLite first, syncs to GitHub, can pull down from GitHub, and I added "Gates" to stopgap Claude or whatever agent from marking things complete if they've not been: compiled, unit tests run, or simple human testing / confirmation. The Gates concept improved my experience with Claude, all too often it says it finished something, when in fact it did not. Every task must have a gate, and gates must pass before you can close a task. Gates can be reused across tasks, so if "Run unit tests" is one gate, you can reuse it for every task, when it passes, it passes for that one task <-> gate combination. Anyway, I'm happy for Beads, Gas Town not so much my wheelhouse on the other hand.
TBH this post still reads like a clown show.
•
Yeah but the clown show is now marked 1.0 for release.
California ghost-gun bill wants 3D printers to play cop, EFF says (theregister.com)
•
I could ask LLM to find me "legal" parts that are 1:1 with gun parts or even better find metal parts in craftcloud3d.com or sendcutsend.com. With big enough database it could find right items on Amazon. It's impossible to legislate.
•
We are sorry, but your print resembles random princess from Disney too much (actually, we won't tell you which). Just following the law you know..
•
Personally, I see this as an assault on 3d printing more than any real attempt to regulate guns. I own several 3d printers. If I wanted to make something resembling a firearm I'd go to home depot WAY before I bothered 3d printing parts. You basically just need a metal tube, and well... a pipe from home depot does that much better than trying to 3d print something much less reliable. So given we don't do this regulation for any of the much more reliable ways to create unregistered firearms... what's special about 3d printers? So my assumption is immediately that some relatively large lobbying group feels threatened by 3d printing, and is using this as a driver to try to control access and limit business impact. Either way, this is bad legislation.
•
Not that I support any of these obviously stupid bills but: > what's special about 3d printers? They can make guns made out of plastic and metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people. You are probably right about the lobbying group, I agree.
•
> metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people What are bullets and shell casings made out of again?
•
So, I cannot 3d print a squirt gun or a nerf style gun either? This print looks "scary" you cannot print it.
•
A. What if some part looks like some other non-gun part? B. What if they can further break down the pieces to avoid detection?
•
AFAIK If I try to scan a dollar bill, both the hardware and the software won’t let me be. How is this different?
•
A dollar bill is exactly the same (roughly) always. Banning models of gun parts (or anything 3D printed, for that matter) is like trying to ban the patterns of dust in the wind. There are millions of permutations and ways to slice the problem.
•
I enjoy your use of the word "slice" there.
•
Photoshop does that voluntarily; it's not required to by law. GIMP doesn't do it. This is akin to trying to require all image editors to detect currency and refuse to process images of it. Making open source image processing software would probably have be illegal because end users could trivially modify it to illegally process currency, or having general-purpose computers that can run software the government hasn't approved would need to be banned.
•
You cannot defend yourself from a hungry coyote or surprised mountain lion with a dollar bill but you can certainly protect yourself or your child from one with a gun
•
US currency has machine-detectable identifying markings incorporated in the design. "Ghost gun" parts do not.
•
One practical difference is that you can make dollar bill detection relatively robust. Sure, you could cut it into 4 pieces and scan them separately, but you'd still get stuck when it comes time to print them. There are only finitely many dollar bill shapes. But there are infinitely many plausible gun components, and infinitely more ways to divide them into sub-assemblies.
•
> but you'd still get stuck when it comes time to print them. It also seems a lot harder to DIY an inkjet or laser printer. The parts needed to DIY a 3d printer are a lot simpler.
•
It would be interesting to test what the minimum detectable piece of US currency is. (I wouldn't want to do it on a network-connected system, though.)
•
The 3d printer gun legislation has been rearing its head in a bunch of states this year, and generally with very similar patterns. I suspect some of the pro-gun-control groups have been pushing it to lawmakers given most legislation is basically copy-pastes from lobbying groups at both the state and federal level. Colorado, Washington, New York, and now California have all floated legislation attempting to make device-level restrictions around the issue. I only followed Washington's in depth, and they ended up removing all the requirements on manufactures, but did criminalize possession of files which I suspect won't hold up to a first amendment challenge.
•
I'm surprised the EFF didn't address the issue that traditional printer manufacturers already comply with law enforcement, specifically that a fingerprint of yellow tracking dots [1] are printed and printers will often refuse to or fail to copy images of money. My point is there's already precedent for printers cooperating with authorities so one can see this as simply an extension to 3D printer manufacturers. I suspect it's a losing battle for the EFF and 3D printer manufacturers to resist some kind of fingerprinting or even the prohibition of things that are guns. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. That's just what I expect to happen. And if you want to argue against it, you should address the printer tracking dot issue or argue how this is different. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots
•
Open source is core to 3d printing. I have never heard of an open source traditional printer. That is the difference. This is an attempt to lock down open source.
•
I believe EFF did address the yellow dots but got nowhere. Yellow dot problem is decades old.
•
I just laugh whenever I hear “ghost gun”. > On January 13, 2014 a certain State Senator (no reason to name names) held a press conference where he held a modern rifle in his hands and stated, “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that this is utter nonsense, and it was appropriately memed into oblivion. Most anti-gun activists and legislators seem to have no more knowledge than this - which is to say, none.
•
> Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that this is utter nonsense Most people in California who vote on these matters have not held a BB gun, let alone a semi automatic. They have 0 idea that you just cannot buy actual guns in California anymore! They think you can just buy a gun at Walmart like you can buy a can of Coke. A few years ago a local Walmart was clearing our their air rifle selection. Since ammo have become really expensive, I bought out the whole shelf of air rifles so I could continue to target practise. People called the cops on me. The local sherrif's department received nearly a 100 calls that hour when we spoke. When I asked them why they even bothered to turn up because they know no Walmart in a 300 mile radius have ever sold a rifle in the last 20 years as was described to them over the phone, they just shrugged and said "politics".
•
> California's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers I can only assume California has solved all its major problems if policing 3D printers is at the top of the agenda. It's like when someone complains their neighbor can afford two yachts and they can only afford one, you know they are doing pretty well if that's their major concern.
I don't understand the problem solving mindset that thinks banning guns would solve the problem of a person intent on causing harm. In the U.K., where I feel guns are only showpieces (do even cops have them?), stabbing is a known problem. In India, where ammo is way more expensive than machetes and knives, people are literally murdered with them. The only argument I can understand, when it comes to banning guns, is that it reduces the blast radius that an evil person can have. So what's next, lock down the air, radio, roads, internet, water, food supply chains because these are all attack vectors? If that's the proposal, what's my plan when coyotes and mountain lions attack my child and I on our regular walks on rural property?
•
guns democratize mass murder. With a gun, I can kill a bunch of people before police can stop me. A knife? At best I can kill one or two in a public place before people run away and eventually a different group is going to stop me pretty quickly.
•
- can you build bombs to blow up an apartment complex full of 1000s of people? - can you poison the water supply of an apartment complex full of 1000s of people? - can you drop a harmful substance using a $50 drone onto an open area where of 1000s of people have congregated?
•
We also restrict the components of those pretty heavily, though. Try buying too much fertilizer without a farm and see who shows up. This isn't a judgement on your general point, but I think bombs and bioweapons and etc are very bad examples for you here.
I'm so glad I left California 6 years ago. They are going to regulate and tax their startups and innovators away to other states. This is supremely stupid.
•
This is the inevitable result of having a single-party government which is no longer accountable to regular citizens.
•
No it’s not. Xi has power as absolute as Newsom and manages just fine. When your country has large, but solvable problems, absolute power works great for quelling unrest by fixing problems quickly and efficiently. Newsom is just generationally incompetent.
•
laughs in Texan and the entirety of the South
Why don't these bills go after ammo or gunpowder access? Seems as long as you have access to a cylinder, and ammunition, you can make a gun.
•
I've always felt that it you want to really impact gun violence, tax the hell out of ammo and gunpowder. Like $20/bullet. For those who believe in self-defense, a handful of bullets is all you need your entire life, and ideally they'll go unused. Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe. Tricky part would be hunting, but restricting such a tax to ammo used for handguns is probably an 80% solution.
•
> Could probably create exceptions for bullets used at the gun range, so you can become proficient and safe. Amusing to imagine the red diesel of sport shooting - better hope the tax authority doesn't find any combustion-proof dye on the self-defense shell casings!
•
I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote. For those who believe in democracy, a handful of votes over a lifetime is all you need, and ideally the right candidate wins anyway. Could probably create exceptions for local elections, so you can still participate in your community. Tricky part would be general elections, but restricting such a tax to federal races is probably an 80% solution.
•
> I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote. You don’t even have to go that far. $10 and a trip to the DMV is apparently an insurmountable barrier.
•
blackpowder is just barely chemistry, more like engineering. carbon, sulphur, and potassium nitrate, in a particular ratio. potassium nitrate is watched, and reported in large quantities, or particular form, but can be manufactured by most people that can follow a recipe. regulating the propellant cant stop it from being made. also someone really didnt think it through by regulating "receivers" they regulated what is most often the easiest part to manufacture. the core parts [barrel, bolt, chamber] are difficult to build, require tech to build from stock, and are sold off the shelf, while receiver needs 4473 as if it was a fully functional firearm, and that is the part that can be built, from a 2x4 or a billet of material, depending how long you want it to last.
•
because gun control isn't about guns, it's about control
•
That was tried in Lexington and Concord circa 1775, it didn't end well for the guys trying to seize the powder. Happy Patriot's Day this weekend (April 19th)!
I don't know the situation with the actual charge, but if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition.
•
you need tight tolerances for modern ammo, a shotgun, or muzzle loader is more forgiveing. reloading materials are not federally regulated as firearms, you just dont want to have more than 2lbs at a time, or that could bring trouble. you want to be able to KNOW and SEE the difference between a blackpowder, and a smokeless powder, and what not to put it in. one thing that would add a lot of friction is if the primers are regulated. thats the funny thing, felons cant possess firearms or ammo, however you can possess reloading materials, and be fine there until you start actually reloading, then you are in possession of ammo.
•
> if you can make a gun, you can certainly make ammunition theoretically true but having re-sleeved ammunition, the chances of injury is tremendously different. That said, a lot of people in California are having to resort to re-sleeving ammunition, not out of choice but because for all practical purposes, California has made buying ammunition impossible. While you can crawl and bite your way through getting a horribly castrated gun in California, the real struggle begins buying affordable ammunition. For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. Otherwise you own something of limited use that insanely expensive to operate.
•
Can't you make a blunderbuss pretty easily with some rocks and scrap? I wonder how straight shooting a musket you could make? Probably pretty straight if you happened on something manufactured that already happens to fit pretty precise into your cylinder I'm guessing. You could probably get pretty far with airguns too. I mean a pellet gun is already enough to kill a bird or squirrel outright and pretty damn accurate. I probably wouldn't want to take one of those to the neck or soft part of the head.
•
> For regular people to own a gun that you can actually use in California, (not LEOs or certain other people), you either needed to have inherited them or bought them from the cartels. or, you can just break these stupid, unenforceable laws and buy out of state or just "uncastrate" it yourself. no idea why so many people get their panties in a twist everytime California passes an unenforceable law. they're unenforceable.
•
I guess you are right, both are pretty easy to make.
It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works. It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw. Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright. Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences. And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? That's how the industry literally began. (Not to mention: what do they think would happen to the hundreds of millions of existing "dumb" 3D printers? They won't disappear because there's a law). Sigh .
•
> Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-quite-unintended consequences. California gun laws in a nutshell.
•
California laws in a nutshell.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
YouTube now world's largest media company, topping Disney (hollywoodreporter.com)
•
can someone tell me why youtube music is so good at recommending me music i certainly won't like?
•
When will Youtube - Block "unverified" browsers? - Force KYC or Youtube premium to watch videos? In their ongoing fight against yt-dlp and others i can already not watch videos using VPNs. Adblockers has made most tech people unaware of the enshittification of most web services. For most normal people when they eventually make this change it will not affect them at all.
•
I think the lesson for other media companies is to get all their content into a single online "property" or are their anti-trust issues involved? There's a very low bar for anyone in the world to watch YouTube with a handheld device and an internet connection. What am I missing? I suppose it's their ad program and fast-acting content ID system that juice it - that'd be the hard part to get right. Perhaps if Soundcloud did video it'd be a challenger.
•
OK can they now stop forgetting my chosen settings on TV every time? It's a pain in the butt. And stop recommending me the same videos over and over , gah
•
Streaming services is probably one of the hardest things to replace if looking for European alternatives to _everything_ from the US. YouTube's library is just so vast and making a similar thing hosted here won't help much.
•
Its quite funny to me cus they are making money by showing ads to fake accounts and bots. Eg. https://youtu.be/ucRTW4rgrbU?si=dfRIy76BM8ntNQph
Youtube must know better than me what to recommend me out of all the videos... still, I get presented the same shite again and again. To be fair: not everything is shite and Youtube is my favorite social media (especially for discovering new music), but I noticed a big drop in quality videos from one day to the other a couple of years ago. Just opening up Youtube one day and seeing all kinds of thumbnails with people with their mouth open, very 'colory' thumbnails (more childlike), channels that I would never watch being presented... I should have noted the exact date, but I didn't. I guess it was around two years ago. Even searching for specific topics is hard. I just know there's enough material on the platform, but in my search results I get so many doubles and channels that I already know. I can keep scrolling, but to no result. If anybody knows some good DIY or woodworking channels, let me know!
•
I noticed that the Shorts pedaling is causing a major deterioration of the service and it started a few years ago. At some point I looked too long at a thirst trap and now all I get is OF girls jumping on trampolines and stuff like that, despite spending literal days of time on longer form content for every second I've glanced at that stuff. They just really want me to interact with their Shorts doomscroll. It certainly has the scent of enshitification since Shorts.
•
It's a constant work on my side, but asking the algorithm to not show me this trash channel seems to be working for me. As soon as I see a clickbait thumbnail/title, I ask to not show it anymore. On a daily basis I get 90% of interesting content on the home page. It particularly works great for music; now I get better recommendations from YouTube than from Spotify (which is my main music platform).
•
curate your watch history a little bit
•
This doesnt help. Youtube is weird. On one hand, the majority of watch time is Beast brain rot like content but on the other hand, there is genuinely amazing creativity happening. The issue is discovery. Youtube cannot help with discovery because it does not increase watch time. It is far more likely that an autoplay of a “safe known” video will be watched then something new.
•
Agreed. It painfully overfits based on what I've watched. I've watched thousands of videos and it still doesn't understand me at all because it appears to treat every action as equal. As an example, I like watching the Starcraft II streamer uThermal. However I'm not really interested in other Starcraft II content creators because uThermal scratches that itch. Of the 30 videos currently proposed to be on front page I'd consider watching maybe 4 of them. To be honest I'm a big fan of the change they made to occasionally show new content because it actually provides some novelty (one of those 4 is of a video from a creator with only 19 subscribers).
•
The worst is that if you're someone who enjoys multiple niche things and who also interacts with the algorithm (like - dislike - not interested) your account gets marked as content discovery vanguard and it will endlessly feed you videos with <1000 views just so they can get more feelers on if the content is actually good. Even if you consistently "not interested", the algorithm never ever figures out the overlapping theme is that you (generally) don't like low view count low subscriber count content.
•
> If anybody knows some good DIY or woodworking channels, let me know! A woodworker and former RIM engineer -- if you don't already know his channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Matthiaswandel
•
The YouTube home screen is a total wasteland. It's a disaster. It's a horrific attention suck that's done enormous damage to humanity's collective attention span. Recommendations are barely any better - sometimes they're loosely connected to the video you just watched, but other times it's just more weird addicting YouTube slop. At the same time, YouTube is an incredible resources; a civilizational achievement. It's a library of an enormous amount of knowledge, often presented in an engaging manner and well summarized. You can learn an enormous amount of things on YouTube. I wish we could have one without the other, but all those videos servers don't pay for themselves, and the good stuff doesn't come without an enormous amount of subpar video content, and the stuff that pays is rarely the most useful. I try to never engage with recommendations or the home screen, but it's hard especially when I'm tired or otherwise low on willpower. Ideally I could get a YouTube app that's just a search box and can handle links that I click from other sources. I don't know if that exists and if it does, Google has a strong incentive to shut it down.
•
>"Youtube must know better than me what to recommend me out of all the videos... still, I get presented the same shite again and again." Turn off the feed and turn on your brain. Think about what you want to learn and search for it. If you don't know what you want to learn, read until you do. The algorithms have turned our minds into mush.
•
Don't talk to me like that. My post does not invite this kind of reaction. > Turn off the feed and turn on your brain. Don't suggest I don't use my brain, please. For this purpose I built my own feed reader (as part of all kinds of social functions for my website system, link in bio), which I also use to scan for new videos on Youtube's channels that I follow. It works great. Sometimes I want to discover new channels and go directly to Youtube. > Think about what you want to learn and search for it. This is exactly what I said in my OP. I searched for topics on Youtube to discover new videos and channels, it's hard and doesn't work.
•
The home page isn’t great. I think what he ment was use the subscription feature, which you seem to do. I sometime forget that feature exists, but I have channels I like that seem to only show up when I pull up subscriptions and never make it to the “home page suggestions” (I guess my own personal algorithm?).
•
Their last video search changes have been the worst thing they've ever done, I can never find anything I actually search for, its pretty obvious its to shove ad stuffed videos in your face, and hide old videos they cannot monetize, but holy crap. There's even some youtube channels where both the video and audio I used to listen to is completely FUBAR'd so somewhere in YouTubes infra, old videos are hinging on a hard drive that's dying in production.
•
>hide old videos they cannot monetize All videos are monetized. Some videos don't do rev share with the author, but YouTube still gets the ad rev.
•
Big brands don't pay the big bucks to buy placements on run-of-network channels (ie. small random channels).
•
Demonetized videos show fewer or no ads. It's something they implemented because advertisers don't want to be associated with some kinds of content.
•
> Youtube must know better than me what to recommend me out of all the videos... still, I get presented the same shite again and again. Yep, for some reasons the recommendation engines seem to have become “oh you glanced at this post for 2 second or you watched a single video, this must be exclusively what you want” I’ve seen it on social media too, notably Facebook.
•
It optimizes for binging. Most people watch one channels content as a single session letting autoplay take over. So if they think you are now on a new channel, they will show that channels videos. If you scroll down on suggested videos after watching something, it is pretty easy to see how it works. Just keep scrolling and eventually it does start to cycle in a loop of only a few unique options.
•
>Yep, for some reasons the recommendation engines seem to have become “oh you glanced at this post for 2 second or you watched a single video, this must be exclusively what you want” Worse than that, at times my home page feed has been 5-10% "Here's a video you've already watched all the way through . Want to watch it again ?" recommendations. Like YT can see I've watched the video - why are so many videos I've watched being "recommended" for me?
•
Oh man, I think I had a subscription to HBO through YouTube Then HBO did a machine gun fire of price increases so I cancelled. For the next few weeks every single YouTube recommended video was an HBO show/movie.
•
Yup, that's exactly the youtube problem. It's really terrible for finding new interesting things. If you don't already know exactly what you want to watch, you'll never discover something new you might like.
•
Spotify sucks too with this. Theres certain artists where if I create a radio station from a song/album or whatever, I will know what like 20 of those songs in that generated station will be. Maybe 8-15 artists and the same 1-3 songs they pick from that artist for that given sort of radio generated call. The feature is good for a toe dip into discovery but you hit the bottom of its depth almost immediately. Sometimes it changes the generated playlist, but hardly. Feels way more siloed than actual FM radio. I might have to start building my own playlists again and do old fashioned discovery, which was almost a part time job evaluating discographies and studying genre history.
I pay for YouTube Premium. No ads; I feel like it respects my time. Algorithm is well tailored too. The “remove video thumbnail” and “remove YouTube shorts” chrome extension is a must install though.
•
> it respects my time > remove video thumbnail” and “remove YouTube shorts” chrome extension is a must install Which is it? Does YouTube respect your time and attention as a user or does it prey on them? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. The fact that you can pay to opt out of ads has always seemed like a weird business decision to me. Sabotage your ad viewership by siphoning off users with spending money for things like an ad-free subscription. I suppose it prevents losing users to paid platforms or those who just wouldn't tolerate ads at all, and gives an out for users who would otherwise contribute to the ads vs ad blockers arms race.
•
What is shocking about youtube's advertising is just how bad the supposedly "targeted" aspect of it is. The entire original advantage these tech companies had over traditional entertainment and media companies was their access to data and their ability to use that for targeted advertising. It was supposed to be a win-win, so they claimed. The viewer would get targeted advertising to match their interests and brands would get their ads delivered in a hyper accurate way. Instead, the ads are just garbage. If anything, most of the ads I see on my tv (the only time I see ads on youtube) are worse than the ads I see in traditional media, like magazines or TV, in the sense that they literally don't feel targeted or curated at all. I watch tons of bike races and highlights on youtube TV and then almost all my ads are for cars, generic laundry detergent, and obvious scam crap products, anything but something bike related! Do you know where I do see far better targeted advertising? Bike magazines and print media! The entire idea that youtube is good at what they do (to make money) just seems to be a sham in my experience.
•
"The ads are just garbage" But the interesting thing is that, statistically what they are serving maximizes their revenue. So they have the best version of what they want to do, and it keeps maximizing their objectives (profit). The problem is that such objective became somewhat perpendicular to what some people like. It's funny but maybe watching that stupid Ad, somehow makes you do something that in the end makes them profit.
•
Good to know. I disabled watch history just so YouTube wouldn't recommend any shorts.
Honestly, I'm not at all surprised. In many ways, YouTube (and other content creation platforms in general) are just a better deal for many people than traditional forms of entertainment. The thing with traditional media is that it's all about limits and compromise and trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The TV and radio airwaves are limited, as is the schedule. Cinemas and screening times are limited. Shops selling books are limited. Etc. So what you get is very generic and milquetoast. It's bland content aimed at a large audience that (presumably) doesn't want to think too hard or leave their comfort zone, which is designed to appeal to every possible region on Earth at the same time and which doesn't scare away corporate types that see anything outside of a few specific genres as too risky to deal with. Much of what's on YouTube isn't like that. Yeah, there are censorship issues and other such problems, but many of the videos and channels there are as niche as niche can be, and all the better because of it. You don't need to care if your videos appeal to 300 million people in the US or are understandable to a few billion worldwide, you just need to care that an audience that wants that sort of content can discover them and find value from it. Almost every commenter on this site watches something different on YouTube, often about topics that appeal to only a tiny percentage of the population. Platforms like YouTube can support that, traditional media companies can't. The cumulative impact of all those different channels and creators is bigger than any small library of mass market works could ever be.
•
It's a cool argument, but I don't think it's how YouTube is being used or how it makes money. The majority of views goes toward a relatively small number of mainstream content creators who converge on more or less the same sanitized format, down to the same video thumbnail visuals. Sure, there's a long tail of people who do free labor for YouTube by publishing niche reviews or science lectures and never seeing a penny, but if they disappeared overnight, I don't think that YT viewership or revenue would budge. YT might have gained steam as a video equivalent of the old Reddit, but it converged on mass-consumption of sanitized, professionally-produced, focus-group-tested content.
•
> YouTube (and other content creation platforms in general) are just a better deal for many people than traditional forms of entertainment. I think a big factor is that it's low friction. Just open the link or search whatever you want and it plays. It's not like cable where you need to sign up for a service, or Netflix where you need to scroll around in previews selecting for your next show, it's always on your phone, laptop or TV fast and free. It's successful because it's mindless, people can just pull something up and consume content. If they start pushing more unskippable ads, or requiring subscriptions or accounts to view, their viewership would go way down and people would move on to next easier thing.
•
Oh this is definitely another big part of it. Signing up for any streaming service is a complete pain, especially if you're trying to set it up on a TV or something. Every time someone non-technical has tried to set up Disney+ or HBO or Netflix, they've ended up asking for help due to stuff like having to type in codes via a TV remote or access the same page across multiple devices just to get started. And that's not even getting into the content part, where the stuff you want is probably on like 15 different services and you're either gonna pay through the nose for something you barely need or you'll have to miss a whole bunch of things because it's less of a hassle that way. Yeah, it's a lot easier when almost everything can be found on a couple of sites for free, where you don't need an account to view most videos and where everything is about as predictable as it can be.
My biggest concern about Youtube is that they do not truly have a competitor. They just raised premium prices again making it one of my most expensive entertainment subscriptions.
•
Netflix, Disney, Paramount, cable TV, satellite TV, Twitch, etc etc It's like saying McDonalds doesn't have any competitor.
•
Newpipe and freepipe!
•
Exactly. Isn't this supposed to be Hacker news? I find it hard to believe that there are people on this site without an adblocker.
•
The barrier to entry seems pretty low, technically at least. Maybe someone will create something with a different twist that will catch on. TikTok was able to carve out a niche after all.
•
There is no barrier, only a moat. The moat is enforced by copyright.
I suspect they're going to soon do what Amazon did as well, where they start putting ads into the regular YouTube Premium service, and charge an extra $3 a month for a completely ad free experience. I have the family plan shared across six accounts, and it went to $26, which really isn't that much but I'm not entirely sure why they're doing it.
•
Why would they? The entire point of YouTube Premium is removing ads. There are a few other benefits, but being ad-free is the big one. If they put back ads, I believe that most people will simply cancel their subscription and get a renewed interest in ad-blockers. It makes more sense to just increase the price, as they do. It is not like Amazon. Most people get Amazon Prime for the "free" shipping, and Prime with ads is a good value proposition, you get shipping but get a discount on the part that doesn't interest you. I don't get why tying a shipping to a streaming service isn't more controversial by the way, it is borderline illegal. Oh, and by the way, ad-free is not really ad-free, you still have sponsored segments, but these are not under YouTube control.
•
At least the sponsored segments can almost automatically be skipped now. If you press forward on the remote it will jump ahead of the sponsored bit. A little annoying that I have to actively skip it but still better than watching them. Dunno, big corporations really like showing ads for some reason. I think Google, whose main business is ads, will try to shove them in more peoples' faces, and claim that YouTube Premium will be "reduced ads" and then there will be YouTube Premium+ that has no ads, for a nominal fee, of course.
This has happened to me btw. I can only suspect they are "testing" the reception.
•
Ugh. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a very strong, borderline-irrational distaste for ads. I hate advertising, I hate having to watch advertisements, I will go out of my way considerably to avoid ads. I have over 400 blu-rays specifically because I wanted to guarantee that I don't have to risk seeing ads in my media. I liked YouTube Premium because it was an ethical way to avoid ads on YouTube; there's always been adblock but I always felt bad depriving creators of their revenue; most of them (at least at the time) weren't big heartless corporations, they were individuals creating stuff. If I start seeing ads unless I'm extorted for more money, that might end up being a final straw for me.
•
>If I start seeing ads unless I'm extorted for more money, that might end up being a final straw for me. How is it any different than the price increases that have happened up until now? Or do you mean $27 per month for up to 6 accounts is the most you will ever be willing to pay?
•
I'm not a huge fan of the current price increase, but what I was referring to was what Amazon Prime did about a year ago. Amazon Prime has ads by default now, or you can get rid of the ads if you pay an additional $3 a month. If they start showing some amount of ads on my YouTube Premium, and start charging a fee to get rid of all of them, I think it will just piss me off; I already pay for YouTube Premium, I am not going to pay extra for extra ad free.
•
I think it is best not to get emotional over a business' marketing decisions. It is simply a change in price, dressed up to be more palatable for other people who are not as discerning.
•
Yeah I have literally spent tens of thousands to host media that I could technically have access to for a handful of $10/month subscriptions, but I can't stand ads and cross promotion. A nice bonus is that a movie or TV show can't just randomly leave licensing window and disappear from my catalog.
•
I gave up ~2021. Bought one of the 10tb 5200rpm disks and just started yt-dlping entire channels when I found something good. With mixed 360p/480p/720p backups, I've used ~1/5th of the disc across nearly 50,000 files. This does make me the unethical bad-guy, but my aversion to advertisement is so strong that I can't feel any remorse. AdSense is a scourge on the internet, and once Google is held accountable for it they'll immediately try to extort their licensed library of millions of videos to make a living. And they'll have to try a lot harder than that if they want to deprive me of a daily Tom Scott video with my morning coffee.
I always see it as more of a social media company rather than a media co.
•
There's nothing social about it. You don't add your friends and chat with your friends on YouTube.
Just anecdotes, but I feel YouTube comments are the bottom of social media. Even Twitter and Reddit are better. But if the 99% garbage is the price of the emerging of channels like 3B1B, I think it's still a pretty good deal.
•
I don’t agree at all. This was true a decade ago, but today YouTube comments are almost all positive, and you’ll often get some really insightful ones too.
•
> but today YouTube comments are almost all positive Yeah, exactly. I believe this is the main reason the quality is so bad. Comments with any negative language get pushed down, creating an empty (sometimes toxic), artificial positive atmosphere.
•
Channels can moderate their comments too. So channels run by thoughtful, community-oriented people will zap trash comments. The music production sphere is especially good.
Their algorithm has a toxic positivity problem where they weight positivity so much the most moronic, saccharine crap sits at the top and you'd be hard pressed to distinguish the comments from LLM slop.
•
"Epic refresh pull" is my personal pet hate right now. Although "like if you are watching this in <year>" on older videos is close behind.
I agree. I wonder how people are motivated to comment if they can't even track replies or check likes. It certainly completely kills motivation for me
•
Do you and GP not get notifications for replies and (at least some) likes?
•
In my case I have almost all notifications disabled so maybe there's an option somewhere. Generally find those notification badges too powerful for me to not check and then get waylaid doom scrolling/watching, so I've made it a habit to always disable them everywhere. Somewhat tempted to re-enable it as I only really comment on videos that are for very very niche communities and I'm usually answering or asking questions.
Where is it being shoved down anyone’s throat? You literally have to intentionally click a short video or use the shorts tab to see any YouTube short.
•
They play on app startup on the android app, at least for me.
Ehhhh not recently. They have an entire shorts section on my subscription page now, and shorts are _heavily_ pushed on my home page feed despite me trying to dismiss them multiple times. Like yes I can hide them all using ublock on desktop and morphe on Android, but that the fact I have to do it to avoid them is because they're pushing shorts harder as of late, it used to also be pushed but not as much from my personal experience.
•
>They have an entire shorts section on my subscription page now Because the people you subscribe to are making those shorts. Your subscription page shows you all the most recent videos from the channels you’re subscribed to. That in no way is shoving anything down your throat. You’re just supposed to watch what you want to watch. You’re not expected to click and watch every video in your subscription feed.
You click the button to hide the card of Shorts on the home page and it just says We'll show you fewer Shorts on Home Not "no more", but "fewer". Which means you don't get a choice, YouTube will still shove them down your throat.
•
That’s not shoving them down anyone’s throats. If you don’t want to watch a short, don’t click on it. Just like if you don’t want to watch a video about a certain topic, you don’t click on it. Seeing that they exist is in no way an inconvenience or annoyance. You’re supposed to just watch what you want.
40% of lost calories globally are from beef, needing 33 cal of feed per 1 cal (iopscience.iop.org)
•
false comparison, as most calories cattle consume are from things people dont eat, even if there are simmilar variets of plants that both people and animals eat, they are not interchangable. Animals also eat huge quantities of human food, that has been rejected through some technical consideration, just size, as many crops produce many fruits or vegetables that are iether too large or small to be processed, or are misshapen or damaged, cow dont care nom nom nom, gone by the ton, and the trucks are still comming. The true unforgivable waste is by people over eating, wasting, throwing away, and destroying good foog for countless beurocratic reasons.
•
First cow farts and now calories. I really don't care how hard Californians try to push for the removal of beef from our diet. I'm not going to stop eating beef and neither is the rest of the world. And impossible burgers are absolutely vile and disgusting.
I think we need more ruminant animals raised on grass as a means of regenerative farming... I think beef largely gets a bad rap for a lot of reasons that largely don't hold to grass fed cattle farming.
•
then your next is to cite research from the guy who used to hunt elephants in Africa and it's the heirs of a livestock industry, doing TED talks about regenerative farming meanwhile no independent or state funded research except their organization could replicate the finding over the decades?
Cows eat grass. Humans use more calories digesting grass than they gain from eating grass, so cows are infinitely more efficient than humans at gaining calories from grass. And there are places in the world where growing human food would destroy the land. Semi-deserts like Texas and Montana. Grazing cattle there is a good idea. Bison would be even better because the native prairie there is adapted to bison, but cattle are a close substitute. But we eat a lot more cattle than Texas & Montana can support.
•
you type like using land from semi-deserts isn't destroyed for meat production... you need to plant, fertilize and apply pesticides to maintain grass! or do you think grass with sometimes 60% of protein per gram grows out of nowhere? or that the global grain production, which more than 85% goes into feeding livestock that it's sometimes 20 times less efficient to produce the same quantity of protein, can't be distributed to the population?
Yes let me eat 5.7kg of broccoli per day instead of 500g of beef to meet my protein macros
•
It works both ways: "Yeah, let me eat 100kg of beef per day instead of 500g of broccoli to get my Vitamin C." But anyway, legumes are much more efficient source of protein than beef.
A large amount of beef is mostly grass fed and finished on a grain feed lot the last month of life.
•
Got a source for "last month of life"? Penn State University Extension says "...approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average."[1] Oklahoma State University Extension also cites a study that compares "growth and carcass attributes of calves finished for 98 to 105 days in a grass system or a legume system"[2] That puts us between 3 to 6 times longer than you stated, and gives us the context for how much of the average cattle's life that is. (USDA Prime, Choice, and Standard are all 30 to 42 months. Select is under 30 months.[3]) 1: https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production 2: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/finishing-beef-cattle-on-the-farm#:~:text=a%20dirt%20lot.-,Table%203,-.%20Growth%20and 3: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/slaughter-cattle-grades-and-standards
Well nobody is upset at the cows. We’re talking about excessive consumption of cows, in agriculture.
•
I would talk to the governments of the regions of the world that is doing that then. Would you be more okay with it, if it was used to grow carrots and beans?
The grass most cows eat also need to be planted. The point of this post is that we could be planting stuff we can eat so you don't have to 'pay' the conversion cost.
•
That depends entirely on where you are. In India, for instance, dairy cattle are fed almost exclusively on crop residues and by-products. Crop residues being what's left over in the field after you harvest and by-products being what would otherwise be waste left over after you process for human use.
In terms of the Amazon... that was done BY humans... the cattle didn't tear down any trees. In terms of aquifers in the US... if the cattle are naturally raised in grassland areas or areas where regeneration is a goal, then it's largely using water for the health of the land, not strictly the cattle. MOST water used by cattle is rain water that would have fallen on the land with or without the cattle there.
•
>In terms of the Amazon... that was done BY humans... the cattle didn't tear down any trees literally the funniest thing I have ever read on HN, well done
•
> In terms of the Amazon... that was done BY humans... the cattle didn't tear down any trees. This is a pedantic distinction that accomplishes nothing. The humans did it to grow cattle for food. If the price of that destruction had to be paid by the producers/consumers there would be a lot less people eating meat.
Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics, it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot, since that is using a lot of cropland to support that. ... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from that.
•
I think cattle are fine... though I'm also okay with more Bison, goats, sheep, deer, elk, etc. I'm also more than okay with less use of feed lots and direct butchery of grass fed ruminants. As for marginal land... personally, I can only handle mostly eating meat and eggs, doing much better with ruminants. I'd be just fine with the majority of uninhabited lands being used by mostly wild ruminants over any kind of farming, especially farming that is using chemical fertilizers and stripping the land.
> it's for ethanol or other uses ... and? I read it so far down. Now could you please kindly explain why this is "garbage"?
•
In general, biofuels are a pretty inefficient use of land: https://ourworldindata.org/biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehicles
I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program (honeypot.net)
Isn't that how it should work? If you write the police and ask them to delete all their data about you, that isn't a thing that they do. It shouldn't matter if the police store their data on AWS or their own servers. Flock is a tool used by the police so it should work the same way.
•
You're right are exemptions for both GDPR [0] and the CCPA [1] where organizations aren't obligated to comply with erasure requests if it would limit their ability to prevent or investigate crimes, fraud, or similar matters. But that's not what Flock is claiming. They're claiming that they don't even have to consider the request because they don't own the data. [0] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/exemptions/a-guide-to-the-data-protection-exemptions/ [1] https://www.clarip.com/data-privacy/ccpa-erasure-exemptions/
Lot of Flock Defenders in here.
•
Not Flock defenders, just people explaining how this is not a CCPA violation. I could set up 100 cameras around town (with property owners permission) and record cars driving by, birds, etc all day. Then I could sell access to that footage to whoever I want. If they want to scrape license plates that's up to the customer and their problem. Or if they want to track birds, cool, that could be in the frame too.
As I understand it, the author wrote to Flock as they are the entity collecting the PII. Your analogy would only make sense if the author had written to Flock's customers (and even then it's a rather strained comparison).
•
> they are the entity collecting the PII I'm not convinced this is the case. It might be equipment made by them, but does that necessarily mean they were ever even in possession of the data in question? Would you ask the manufacturer of your oven what you ate for dinner last week? No, you're just using an appliance that they made. In the case of Flock I don't think we have any evidence of whether Flock themselves ever hold or store any data produced by their devices when operated by a customer.
I wrote this. I had/have absolutely no expectation that Flock would comply with my request, but figured I should try anyway For Science. Their reply rubbed me wrong, though. They seem to claim that there are no restrictions on their collection and processing of PII because other people pay them for it. They say: > Flock Safety’s customers own the data and make all decisions around how such data is used and shared. which seems to directly oppose the CCPA. It's my data, not their customers'. Again, I didn't really expect this to work. And yet, I'm still disappointed with the path by which it didn't work.
•
> which seems to directly oppose the CCPA. I have some background in data privacy compliance. It sounds like they are claiming to be a Service Provider under CCPA, which is similar to a Processor under GDPR. Long story short, a Controller is the one legally responsible for ensuring the rights of the data subject, and a service provider/processor is a "dumb pipe" for a Controller that does what they're told. So IF they are actually a Service Provider, they're correct that the legal responsibility for CCPA belongs to their customers and not them. That's a big IF, though. Being a Processor/Service Providor means trade-offs. The data you collect isn't yours, you're not allowed to benefit from it. If Flock aggregates data from one customer and sells that aggregate to a different customer, they're no longer just a service provider. They're using data for their own purposes, and cannot claim to be "just" a service provider.
•
>It's my data, not their customers'. Just because data is about you, that doesn't mean it is your data.
•
you may be minunderstanding the california consumer privacy act (ccpa). in the ccpa, personal data is defined as: "Personal information is information that identifies, relates to, or could reasonably be linked with you or your household." and, you do have the rights set forth in the ccpa (know, delete, correct, limit exposure, etc.) regarding that data.
It’s not clear to me that it is actually your data. If I take a picture of you in a public place, I own the picture, not you. But maybe I am unclear on how Flock works.
•
You also might not be considered a commercial entity under the law. It's a bit more nuanced and the words written in a particular statute have to be interpreted together. So statements about "commercial entities" have to be limited to such entities even if we'd really like to be able to go to our neighbor's house and ask them to delete all of the surveillance they have of our cars driving up and down the street in front of their house. I think these laws are often narrowly written to avoid unintended consequences like de-facto banning private operation of surveillance systems on private property.
>I take a picture of the applicant list on your desk. That doesn't make the list of applicants "my data". If the list is sitting there out in the open, then yes, it does make it your data.
•
Well, maybe not. A reasonable person might not think that about that applicant list. I bet you could make a different argument for taking a picture versus memorizing the list too. The legal system thrives on specifics of a situation, so simply asserting that the list of applicants is or is not "yours" because you can see it seems like a gross oversimplification. The specifics of how you came to be there, what your relationship with the officeholder is, and so on probably matters a lot in that situation and I think there might be some unwritten rules or social norms that you'd be expected to follow as well.
I know the feeling! My arguments here are positive, not normative. I don't know that I think it would be a worse world if your hypothesis was correct. I'm just reasonably sure it isn't.
•
For sure. This is the sort of conversation I'd typically rather be having at a bar with appropriate beverages. If it sounds like I'm arguing, it's because it's the kind of thing I'd debate with my friends for the fun of it.
This is true, and it may also be true that location tracking through surveillance networks crosses a line into violating one or more Constitutional rights. One of Flock's revenue streams is explicitly selling access to data made available by other customers. A commonly-cited example is the ability of local law enforcement to locate abortion suspects in other states using the Flock camera network [0]; one could imagine dragnet-style or geofenced queries to also cross the line. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it
•
People keep making this claim that Flock "explicitly sells access to data", but the link you provided doesn't demonstrate that, and Flock contracts I've read contradict the claim. I think what's happening here is that people are trying to colloquially define "selling access to data" to fit the camera data sharing that Flock enables, and then saying that because you have to pay to be a Flock customer to get access to that data, they're effectively selling it. I don' think that's how data brokerage laws work. Flock doesn't own the data they're providing access to, and they're providing that sharing access with the ( avid! ) consent of their customers.
It easily goes both ways. But we do sue American gun makers for deaths caused by lunatics. We sue drug makers for drugs prescribed by a doctor. We sue cloud providers for not reporting illegal photos. Printers are forced to id every printed page to combat counterfeiting. Banks are forced to do close accounts even though it's not their dirty money
•
Most of those examples have to do with the manufacturers knowing that their products were dangerous, addictive or illegal and advertising them aggressively as safe. They're mostly litigated on product liability claims. Banks are regulated by an entire architecture of laws, and we could enact laws that would regulate Flock too, as one of the other commenters pointed out they're doing in Oregon.
But the data collected is property of the government and flock is not allowed to use that data for additional business gain (according to their statements)... So they can't sell the fact that you're at Target at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday to anybody... Nor build profiles to sell to advertisers... And if that's the case that's very similar to cloud storage vendors. If I access hacker news, and the record of my visit is stored in an AWS S3 bucket, I can't submit to AWS to delete my visitor record, even though the server, network cards, wires, and storage medium are AWS property, it was hacker news' website that generated that record and their responsibility to take my request to delete it.. AWS' stance would rightly be "talk to the website operator for CCPA requests"
•
This is worth validating independently, but to be clear: Are you saying Flock itself does not have access to any of the data, and that the data they store on behalf of local governments is not fed into any central datalake? That every organization's data is completely, unalterably separate from everyone else's? If so, that makes the panopticon slightly less powerful.
Because Flock isn't a data broker. Flock's customers own their data, not Flock, and they use Flock's platform voluntarily to share data with other customers.
•
If Flock's customers, using Flock's infrastructure or tooling, can share data with each other, that would be bad. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but that's what I thought was happening before reading this thread, and now I have to go and run through their policies. Either way ALPRs and AI-facial scanners in public are a huge violation of privacy and I loathe them, but I hope it's correct that Flock customers cannot easily share information with one another.
•
So… Flock uses their own platform and top to bottom tech stack to do everything technically? Your local PD doesn’t use random cameras (like Reolink), doesn’t run a custom software stack (like Frigate in a container on some random VM hosted with AWS), doesn’t store the data wherever (like Backblaze)? The customers just have to install the Flock cameras and “order” the subsequent data from Flock? But you say they’re not at all responsible or accountable for any it because despite doing everything at every step, they’re “just a broker”?
•
Flock charges to access the data which is voluntarily shared by other customers. I am struggling to note a difference in this practice from any other data brokerage service in existence. Does Flock do some kind of P2P dance to avoid the data transiting their systems?
Equivocation. My stock broker doesn't own my stocks either, they merely hold my assets in a brokerage account.
•
And you would (rightfully) be angered if your stock broker sold your shares and pocketed the proceeds, because you own them.
> a bunch of progressive legal experts poring over that contract looking for holes all attorneys represent their clients; your attorney does not have to share your opinion of the law or public policy, they can still interpret what the law means to you. if you are afraid your attorney might have a bias (they are human) you may get better advice from the "misaligned" POV: the flaws/holes in a privacy law found by a pro-business conservative attorney are more likely to find sympathy in the courts from both fellow conservatives and progressive judges.
•
As a practical matter, this may be good advice. But it also places a demand on someone with a legitimate concern that they go find an ideological "beard" to make themselves more palatable and sympathetic. It's not hard to see how this enables an institution to gate itself from criticism.
The argument you're making implicates way more than just Flock, and is in a practical sense novel. If you can cite jurisprudence (or even legal experts) backing it up, I'm interested in reading it. Otherwise, I'm happy to accept that we just have premises about the law that are too far apart for an argument to be productive. My experience on HN is that these kinds of discussions almost immediately devolve into debates about what people want the law to be, as opposed to what it actually is.
•
Realistically speaking you're never going to get pro Flock people in any numbers on this site writing comments at all. The anti surveillance position's popularity when it comes to up votes, down votes, and flags on this site is such that pros will continue posting about what they want the law to be and antis will stay out. That's just how crowd voting dynamics shape out.
OpenSSL 4.0.0 (github.com/openssl)
It’s still terrible. There was a brief period immediately after Heartbleed that it was rapidly improving but the entire OpenSSL 3 was a huge disappointment to anyone who cared about performance and complexity and developer experience (ergonomics). Core operations in OpenSSL 3 are still much much slower than in OpenSSL 1.1.1. The HAProxy people wrote a very good blog post on the state of SSL stacks: https://www.haproxy.com/blog/state-of-ssl-stacks And the Python cryptography people wrote an even more damning indictment: https://cryptography.io/en/latest/statements/state-of-openssl/ Here are some juicy quotes: > With OpenSSL 3.0, an important goal was apparently to make the library much more dynamic, with a lot of previously constant elements (e.g., algorithm identifiers, etc.) becoming dynamic and having to be looked up in a list instead of being fixed at compile-time. Since the new design allows anyone to update that list at runtime, locks were placed everywhere when accessing the list to ensure consistency. > After everything imaginable was done, the performance of OpenSSL 3.x remains highly inferior to that of OpenSSL 1.1.1. The ratio is hard to predict, as it depends heavily on the workload, but losses from 10% to 99% were reported. > OpenSSL 3 started the process of substantially changing its APIs — it introduced OSSL_PARAM and has been using those for all new API surfaces (including those for post-quantum cryptographic algorithms). In short, OSSL_PARAM works by passing arrays of key-value pairs to functions, instead of normal argument passing. This reduces performance, reduces compile-time verification, increases verbosity, and makes code less readable.
•
> In short, OSSL_PARAM works by passing arrays of key-value pairs to functions, instead of normal argument passing. Ah yes, the ole' " fn(args: Map<String, Any>)" approach. Highly auditable, and Very Safe.
Just be aware any reasonable network will block this.
•
Procrastinators. FTFY. Eventually these blocks won't be viable when big sites only support ECH. It's a stopgap solution that's delaying the inevitable death of SNI filtering.
•
Why is it "reasonable" to block it?
•
Well, I may want to have a say in what websites the employees at work access in their browsers. For example.
Show HN: Plain – The full-stack Python framework designed for humans and agents (github.com/dropseed)
•
Something like this has been on my mind for a while. When using LLMs for coding I believe it is a significant benefit, if the amount of lines to be reviewed by humans is as small as possible. An app, which is not much more than a configuration in a dense, custom made DSL with minimal coding to specify business logic would be the simplest artifact that a human can review quickly and an LLM can manipulate with ease (provided there's good docs / linting / errors / maybe even a finetuned model at some point). Everything which just works "by convention" or by "opinionated defaults" (allowing a tightly coupled but very feature rich framework) helps to reduce the noise / lines that needs to be reviewed. While this approach might not be optimal for every project, I'm certain the opinionated defaults can work for many endeavours. And the reduction of complexity might be one important aspect, which can make an "agentically engineered" project sustainable.
•
It’s vibe-coded, too. Pass.
•
How does this compare to FastAPI + SQLModel?
•
So a sloppified Django spit out by Claude? Good luck with that.
It looks like it's a fork of Django that just kind changed a bunch of stuff arbitrarily?
•
From the readme: Plain is a fork of Django, driven by ongoing development at PullApprove — with the freedom to reimagine it for the agentic era.
NYC to open municipal grocery store in 2027 (grocerydive.com)
Costco sells chickens as loss-leaders. They don't run out, and Walmart doesn't go buy all of them to resell.
•
A loss leader isn’t a business model when everything is being sold at a loss. The idea that Mamdani is going to undercut a low margin business with higher labor costs is just silly.
I mean Costco’s a membership club. This is NYC. Of course somebody’s gonna show up with a truck and arb any profitable grocery item if there isn’t rationing.
•
Not being able to get stuff on a pallet or in a 5 gallon bucket or whatever has its own cost. Hell, not being able to invoice on NET30 or have a supplier or even not having to pick and pack stuff has a cost.
> The underlying theory is to put these stores in areas that otherwise lack grocery store access, I’m generally partial to that motivation - however doesn’t seem to be happening here. This location (La Marqueta) is within a couple hundred feet of a "City Fresh Market" grocery store and ~1500 from several other grocery stores https://www.google.com/maps/search/grocery+store/@40.7983886,-73.9473076,16z
•
Yes, I agree the city has undermined their own (strong) argument with their choice of location. I noted that in another comment as well. (I previously lived about a ~10 minute walk from that public market.)
The text isn't confusing; the conclusion you draw is just unsupported. The USSR is an example of many failed things. That they failed at those things does not mean those things cannot be done.
•
If it wasn't confusing what made you bring up the space program and fixing roads? I was offering a tangible example of where the thing being proposed was a failure.
Again. This exists. There is no theoretical here. Go look up how the military commissaries work. That will answer your question.
•
military commissaries are subsidized with taxes. So would these stores have lower prices because of tax subsidies? What prevents rich people from exploiting these subsidies?
You sound extremely privileged and frankly out of touch (not uncommon with the HN demographic). Do you think working families in NYC don't deserve the same monetary relief that massive corporations get with their own welfare programs? Why should trillion multinational companies take our public money to subsidize their businesses and we can't do the same for workers? Why do you prefer helping non human entities (corporations) over literal humans?
•
Subsidies can go to small businesses owners. Not just large corporations.
I understand your point of view. But in cities of all sizes, it's easier to not have to do that. For example in NYC, a medium size city, you can easily go do your shopping in multiple places, and not at the same time.
•
Yes, and some people do that. Some consumers go to specific stores to purchase specific qualities of brands. But most do not, especially for convenience products. You get it where you can.
Too much to write in a HN comment so here is a substack post (1) probably worthy of its own HN post. And how is that the obvious solution? You see who is in the Whitehouse and you think this is a champion of antitrust and lifting up the little man? Quite the opposite. NYC government is a separate entity than federal government with different limits to its powers. They can't do anything about cartel behavior. They can, however, open a municipal grocery store. The government engages in commerce all the time. If we took that argument to its logical conclusion there would be no libraries as they compete with book stores. There would be no armies as they compete with Blackrock mercenaries. No public transit as it competes with private transit. No public events as that competes with ticketmaster. No public schools. No public universities. No scientific research grants. No sheltering or feeding the poor. No treating the sick. No treating veterans. No bridges. No roads. No harbors. No anything. What really would be the role of government after we stripped it of all its potential influences on the world of commerce? I can't even imagine what might even be left... No, it seems a big role in this country for government is facilitating conditions for commerce. Educating the populace such as to upskill the nation's labor pool. Building roads free for businesses to use in transporting goods to market. Treating the sick before they get so ill as to be an undue burden on the medical system that threatens its entire latent capacity. Offering cheaper food seems in line with that. People aren't going to use the spare money to throw into a river; they will use their extra money to circulate back into the economy probably in more productive ways than Kroger buying back its stock or its executives or shareholders squandering it on oysters and boat fuel. 1. https://grocerynerd.substack.com/p/grocery-update-17-how-grocery-cartels
•
That post was not at all worth my time, it just cherry picked data without ever putting it together to show intentional price manipulation or monopolistic behavior (no, showing concentration isn't enough). > They can't do anything about cartel behavior. Incorrect, several states have passed their own antitrust laws, there's nothing that limits it to the federal government. > The government engages in commerce all the time. If we took that argument to its logical conclusion there would be no libraries as they compete with book stores. There would be no armies as they compete with Blackrock mercenaries. No public transit as it competes with private transit. No public events as that competes with ticketmaster. No public schools. No public universities. No scientific research grants. No sheltering or feeding the poor. No treating the sick. No treating veterans. No bridges. No roads. No harbors.... I do think the government should get out of many of those, so your argument doesn't really land for me. > No, it seems a big role in this country for government is facilitating conditions for commerce. I don't see how the government driving out competition by running its own grocery stores, presumably at a loss, is "facilitating conditions for commerce".
•
Good article, thanks for sharing. I haven't tried to verify its claims but at face value pretty illuminating. It seems to me both that: 1. If this article is true then independent groceries should have a slam dunk in keeping prices low. They aren't subject to the price fixing cartel of the big grocers so if they lower prices they'll drive demand to their store and win out on the market. Margins for staples are quite low anyway so volume is the best way to make profits. This means we should observe independent grocers right now outcompeting large chains or driving costs lower . 2. Alternatively if the price gouging is coming from consolidation of the CPG market then state run grocery stores will be just as ineffective at combatting high prices as independent grocers. I guess one can argue that a sufficiently large amount of state run demand can negotiate better CPG pricing but I'm not sure this experiment is big enough.to leverage this. Personally I'm not a fan of state run businesses because the US is so polarized. Today's support can turn into tomorrow's opposition. It's hard to build a lasting institution when differences in candidates and parties can wipe out any wins or losses. Instead I'd like to either see state subsidizing of staples and CPGs using taxes (paying into a food price stabilization fund used to negotiate and aquire staples and CPGs at cost and then resold to grocery stores at lower prices, along with maximum margin guarantees from grocery stores) or I'd like so see an incentive program for independent grocers along with a state blessed way of having disparate grocers negotiate better prices. But I also don't live in NYC and this initiative's success or failure isn't being run on my tax money.
Modifying FileZilla to Workaround Bambu 3D Printer's FTP Issue (lantian.pub)
> I use Linux daily and don't want to switch to Windows just to connect to the printer's FTP service I wonder if the author tried using their file manager to connect? I haven't needed any kind of external file management system since switching to Linux, Dolphin just handles everything (sftp, ftp, samba, etc) for me natively in the same window.
•
Or use mc (midnight commander).
Get an old Prusa MKIII and stick a Revo in there, then learn everything there is to know about 3D printing without spending a fortune or getting locked in. Once you have processed a couple of rolls of filament you'll be much wiser about your needs and that would be the moment to pull the trigger on a 'proper' printer. Bambu AI is a very good printer (we have 10's of them, and 10's of Prusas as well), but the Bambu eco-system is not ideal and they push really hard to get you to use their cloud connect, the printers have cameras and send footage to servers in China if you get them connected to the point that they are usable. In contrast, there are many open source solutions that will connect a Prusa to your LAN and allow various degrees of remote management (Octoprint, for instance). Prusa's are extremely hackable, I've adapted them to do all kinds of stuff they were never meant for (1x1x.25 meter for instance, or standard width and height but 65 cm tall). Bambu's are quite closed, though in theory you could hack on their slicer but it's infuriatingly bad compared to the alternatives.
•
Not the MK3. I love that printer to death, but asking somebody new to 3D printing to do Z leveling manually is a tall order unless they're in it for the hobby. The MK4, with its load cell, eliminates this requirement and is therefore a way better choice for someone new to 3D printing.
I print a couple of tons every year and I would not be able to do that without the knowledge required to operate a farm reliably and productively. Yes, they're tools, but like all tools it helps to know what you're doing. If I hand you a machining center you won't be able to learn much without a lot of breakage and expense. If you get a lathe to learn and play with, to build up an intuition for feeds & speeds and how materials handle and chip then you will be able to use that machining center to the maximum of its abilities. Tools require knowledge. 3D printers are no different in that respect and to toss $100 on a printer just to learn is money very well spent. And those old Prusa's excel at precision work, we can do stuff on those that we can not touch with any of the others.
•
Most people don't intend to print tons every year nor desire to manage a print farm. Most people interested in creating object rather than managing printers will have an infinitely better experience getting a Bambu that is ready to crank out amazing prints right out of the box. Other than basic troubleshooting (which they have documentation on) there isn't really a need to take a deep dive into how exactly each piece works. I say this as someone who started printing many years ago with an i3 clone and has replaced nearly every piece of multiple printers (control board, bearings, hotend, extruder, etc!) over the years for better performance. I moved away from wanting to tinker with the printers and haven't touched them since getting a P1S years ago.
•
I mean, it's kind of like comparing a tuner car with a new EV. Both will take you from A to B but one requires a lot more work to take you from A to B in a very specific manner while the other just turns on and goes. The tuner car has a tremendous amount of power and is really good at driving fast and accurately but it also requires a lot of work and custom parts to get it to perform like that. The most amount of work in maintaining the EV is that it may need new tires eventually, otherwise it just works. Most people just want something that just works out of the box using models they downloaded from the internet. It's great that you want to have a 3D printer that performs at the absolute limit of the hardware but that requires work.
•
Gah and here I was thinking I'm on hackernews rather than 'appliances are us'. Sorry, I got the audience mixed up ;)
For $300 you can get an A1 mini and it's a pretty solidly engineered printer. We're running them until they break. But they don't break...
•
I got the A1 - I knew I would want to print bigger things eventually, and spending an extra ~$100 seemed like a no-brainer. I also always get the bigger disk on phones, etc.
Spain to expand internet blocks to tennis, golf, movies broadcasting times (bandaancha.eu)
•
Just another instance of think global, act local . Whatever can be lapped up by any given nation as an excuse, will be used as such to advocate the crackdown on that nation's right to access the information freely. Think about children, grandma, national security, sovereignity, economy, minorities, tennis, golf, copyright, solar flares, aliens, Keter-class objects, climate change, CO₂, fill your goto excuse in .
•
Oh hi HN, I'm one of the folks behind https://hayahora.futbol , we monitor the blocks via a varying set of homelab infrastructure to at least try to make a bit more transparent when they occur and what gets blocked (which isn't public, and we have to guess). Feel free to AMA!
•
Look, I'd be more supportive of this sort of thing if it worked - pirated futbol streams are rampant despite the blocking. And the blast radius often is the entire devstack. Last weekend they blocked Cloudflare and GitHub simultaneously.
•
"Spain to block the internet 24/7" Please do. I want to see the result on the GDP.
You can bypass this censorship with Starlink. Starlink does not block access like spanish ISPs
•
Or a VPN for a tenth of the price.
If you know Spain, you know this makes total sense: - Half the country or more just doesn't work or do anything else when there's an important match anyway. - There's a big intersection between "people that doesn't care about soccer" and "people that knows how to use a VPN" - Matches are usually at night, past 7pm. It's well after the average citizen work hours. - There's not really huge internet companies there that can lobby the other way around (e.g. infrastructure collapse because of the block). So in short, the ruling is incredibly stupid because they're allowed to do so, save for the vocal minority, the vast majority of the population doesn't care: they're watching the match.
•
> they're watching the match Isn't that part of the problem? Foot egg is so ingrained into the countrymen that nothing else matters. There wouldn't be so much of a forced monopoly if more people would stop watching games and stand up to laliga.
•
Are you intentionally trying to not be taken seriously?
Or somebody will put a lid on the pot.
•
Does not seem like a good idea to a put a lid on a heavily boiling pot...
Ironically, I live in Spain, and at this very minute, there is a football game going on (Atlético Madrid vs Barcelona) which I literally just learned about because I could just hear my neighbors scream about the 0-1 score, and with Vodafone ISP I'm not experiencing the block of Cloudflare right now. https://hayahora.futbol/ also shows "NO" incorrectly (if you're being strict about the title+domain). I'm guessing it's specifically because it isn't a La Liga game, it's UEFA Champions League. At least ISPs aren't indiscriminately blocking things without court orders, which seems to have been specifically about La Liga.
•
The site tracks not football matches, but when blocks occur, and, right now, there are not any. (The whole joke about the site is trying to detect football happening via internet blocks, as otherwise myself personally I wouldn't know at all otherwise about matches happening)
>This is how greed works. The players want as much money as they can get. The owners want to charge as much as they can for everything while paying the least possible amount. The networks that buy the broadcasting and other rights want to most they can charge for them. And the buyer wants to pay as little as they possibly can. That's not greed. That's called a market and it's functioning as it should.
•
There is only a market if there is a commodity. La Liga is not a commodity as I can not equally make a La Liga. This is the basis for antitrust regulations. So no, there is not market. And as such there is no markets that functions as it should.
Its football, so no people are not in the streets, they are watching tv.
•
From this perspective, I kind of think that expanding the bans to golf and movie releases is a good thing - orders of magnitude less people partake in either of those, and so will start to feel the pain of their internet going down too...
And replace them with other idiots, who also support this rubbish? There isn't anyone who has sanity and decency, as their platform.
•
It seems the fundamental problem with democracy is that all the wrong people seek power, and the most qualified shy away from it.
They call it "audio-visual". From the page you linked: > [...] services in sectors currently fully excluded such as transport and audio-visual
•
good catch, thank you. if you look at the actual report summary however it shows that they want to change that: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-publishes-its-short-term-review-geo-blocking-regulation so even if not a reality in all sectors, removing geoblocking is in the interest of the EU. going back to the original question: Why should other EU members care what websites Spain allows their citizens to access? Does the "EU" even have authority for such a thing? they do care, and they should, and yes, they have the authority. personally, when i read the report, seeing how young people are more interested in viewing content from other countries, what first came to my mind is the increased integration of EU countries and cultures that comes from that. that's the why.
when connected health device cause a death I guess
•
you think that a few deaths would stop this? optimistic...
> Assuming that "piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem" is still the prevailing wisdom I don't have experience with broadcast media (in Spain, especially) but I a little experience on the software side: I could not believe the lengths some people would go to in order to avoid paying even $5-10 for useful software. Hours of work, sketchy cracks, downloading things from websites likely to compromise their system. Some of them would become irate when the software was updated and broke their cracks, spending time complaining loudly on forums and social media or even trying to threaten developers. The strangest part is when they start posting from social media where you can see things like their $3,000 gaming PC build, but if they see a chance to avoid paying $10-20 for something they will take it. It becomes culturally embedded in some bubbles: If it's possible to find a way to avoid paying and there are no consequences for trying, some people will go for it. I don't even buy the "it's a service problem" argument either. I have a friend who loves to watch sports games but refused to pay for any services. He will spend 30 minutes jumping from one website to the next enduring crazy amounts of ads, pop-ups, and attempts to get him to install things on his computer until finally getting to a blocky stream that drops out every few minutes. He can easily afford to pay, but getting things without paying is basically a little game he likes to play.
•
Most software piracy is more convenient then what you describe.The warez takes pride in making the best cracks available.
It's absolutely a service problem. I can pay for the local sports rebroadcast packages.. but oh wait, you just don't feel like this week, playing the Raptors game, because there's a local thing you think people will watch? Fair enough, subscribe to DAZN, and pay there.. oh sorry, we've opted to stop carrying <insert all leagues>. Sigh, fine, I'll pay for NBA Leaguepass. I don't live in your country... great, random blackouts. Fine, I'll try and use a VPN (hell, I literally used tailscale to a friend's house for a bit).. but then those games are blacked out too, at random? I'm literally paying you for the service. So yeah, giving some insanely sketchy crypto website $5/month for unlimited whatever that just always works, is worth it. 10/10 will definitely do again. I'm sick and tired of fighting with the NBA, the CFL, or G-D only knows what just to try to watch the things I'm paying for.
•
> Sigh, fine, I'll pay for NBA Leaguepass. I don't live in your country... great, random blackouts. Fine, I'll try and use a VPN (hell, I literally used tailscale to a friend's house for a bit).. but then those games are blacked out too, at random? I live in an NBA "dead zone". I'm in the streaming blackout zone. But not in the TV zone (even if I did pay for TV, which I'd almost consider).[1] And then I VPNed to Canada for international LP, but that wasn't much better. Then Mexico. And then ... Then I found a site that had an actual Roku app (at least) that took payment in Crypto or Amazon GC but was absolutely uninfested, no ads, no garbage, probably at times more reliable than even the NBA's app. But they got shut down. Not to mention LP refused to refund me though my subscription was effectively useless because I "could still watch the games, and without commercial or timeout breaks, even!" - yeah, 24 to 72 hours after it was played. Yay. Lucky me.
I pay for a ton of sports content across a ton of platforms. I used to pirate a ton of sports across a ton of platforms. I don’t seem to have nearly the same difficulty as you. I wanted to watch the Olympics so I reactivated my Peacock account, paid for a month, then immediately canceled it. I’ve never had consistent issues finding where I could watch a particular game. It is aggravating that my MLBTV subscription doesn’t work when my team plays on an Apple TV broadcast but that’s 1-2 times a year. Maybe I was not good at piracy but it took just about the same effort to find the right links, deal with constant buffering, etc. But I find it pretty phenomenal that I can easily watch just about any sporting event now with little difficulty
•
> I don’t seem to have nearly the same difficulty as you. Wait til you hear of this concept called "Dead Zones". The NBA has them. What's that? It's where you live in the streaming blackout zone and get a nice message saying "watch this on your regional sporting affiliate", but you don't live in the TV zone for that team, so "your regional sporting affiliate" doesn't cover the game. So you get to watch... national games... and you can watch your team's games, on 24 or 72 hour delay. And the NBA will tell you they can't refund your League Pass subscription because of that - you can watch the game, just not when it's happening. You can watch it after you've almost certainly heard the results. "But you'll get to see it with no breaks because we clip the commercial breaks!" Yayyyyy.
You dont understand that there are other mentalities / mindsets than yours. Well they are, and they can be rotten pretty badly. What OP describes is still very prevalent in eastern EU/Europe too, people pirate and do stupid stuff just to save few bucks. But then if you earn <1000€ monthly you start looking at prices in very different optics. Mindset comes from the past and doesnt feel the need to change for 2026. I come from such an environment, partially still affected by it. I would blame it on communism and russian influence but then Spain never had one so there goes my cheap and usual way to push blame. Currently on vacation in Dominican republic and I can see hints of same mentality here and there... maybe its just 'undeveloped societies', for the lack of better term.
•
As Spaniards, we have not gone through communism but we have gone through a dictatorship where we went through a lot of misery. Maybe that mentality will come there. In any case, in Spain the level of penetration of streaming services seems high. Although you will always find people who pirate (it was very common when Canal+ existed, etc., then it decreased with the arrival of Netflix, HBO, Spotify and Prime) and now with prices continuously rising I hear a lot about IPTV and pirate decoders. Although I believe that in the specific case of LaLiga, much of the fault lies with the prices imposed. The dominant and more traditional operator (also the most trillero) only offers you the service through convergent Megapacks with attractive prices when hiring and crazy when renewing. The arrival of DAZN has softened it but I don't think it will improve the situation in the medium term. It is very curious that they then reach agreements in emerging markets to offer the price-drawn product (China) and in no case the income is reflected in a more competitive League. Radically changing area, in the field of software there is the culture of paying the minimum. If it can be zero better, even if it means visiting dubious sites and risking your data and credit cards. My vision may be biased. In fact it is ;-)
> Every new service is a colossal headache to set up payment, remember to cancel payment if you only wanted to see the single event and have no need for the service the rest of the year, find what's playing on what when I just don't find these arguments convincing after watching my friend spend cumulative hours upon hours jumping between pirate streaming services trying to find a stable feed for every game. This feels too much like a post-hoc rationalization. I know I'll never win this argument on Hacker News because every piracy conversation turns into an infinite game of moving goalposts, where there's always a new rationalization at every turn. I don't think it's worth discussing until we can be honest and admit that a lot of people pirate because they want free stuff. Every HN piracy conversation has a lot of words written to try to avoid admitting that "free stuff" is a big motivator for a lot of people
•
I'd happily pay for DRM-free content, but it's rarely available in digital form in smaller markets like non-EU European country of Serbia: the only alternative is to look for BR or DVD or CD copies and then rip them myself, which is even more time consuming than finding a decent quality not-so-legal option. Even for music, I do spend time looking for DRM free options (eg. Apple only offers iTunes streaming in Serbia and I had to resort to options running a much smaller catalog like 7digital). I always try going first party first (eg. band's site for music), but it's increasingly not an option. And if I want local Serbian/Croatian/... content, no provider has it at all. As an example, one of local publishers recently started releasing "eBooks" readable only in their own mobile app for Android or iOS: none of my Kindle, Remarkable or Kobo can read them. I did let them know about my willingness to jump on their service if they actually made their books work on my eBook devices, but they did not even honour me with a reply :) For me at least, it is a service problem.
> I don't think it's worth discussing until we can be honest and admit that a lot of people pirate because they want free stuff. Every HN piracy conversation has a lot of words written to try to avoid admitting that "free stuff" is a big motivator for a lot of people Well, see, the thing is you're right, but the "service problem" quote actually addressed that. There's a percentage of people who will never pay, it's true - and by never pay, it means never pay . You can't get them to pay by blocking or adding DRM or whatever. But of the actually relevant group, people who are willing to pay for stuff, then some percentage of them will stop paying if it isn't convenient enough. Now it's a service problem. The trick is getting the full market potential and preventing them from jumping ship. But the service bit only ever applied to potential customers - the other group don't enter the discussion in the first place because they're hopeless. But yeah usually this argument is at least in part misrepresented. However however, no amount of blocking will stop that free stuff group, no amount of hoops will be too much, there is simply no way to extract blood from a stone the way that some media companies keep telling themselves is possible. So all the original blocking and shutting down of half the internet is completely counterproductive regardless.
•
Just to put some context into what _never_ means here: If a website offers me the choice between "accept cookies" and "more options", I'll manually edit the DOM to remove the popup from the offending website. Some sites disable scrolling while such a "We value your privacy" popup is shown, so I wrote a js bookmarklet to work around most common means of scroll hijacking. Google is currently waging a war against adblockers, especially on youtube. I currently have a way around that too but should they start baking ads in the video bytes, I'll stop using youtube altogether (though I am willing to look the other way for content creators shouting out their curated sponsors). There is simply no universe in which I pay for certain types of digital content, and while I can't stop the data collection that ultimately pays for it, I can at least make damn sure that it's unlawful. With respect to Spain and sports, stadiums are littered with ads, players wear ads, the commentator stream itself has ads baked in and people buy tickets and tapas to watch the game live. If that's not enough, go fuck yourselves!
In my experience, people's reasons for piracy are a pretty even mix of all these issues (service problems, principles, and cost) I'd certainly pirate less if I could afford it, but even if I could, I'd still pirate a lot of stuff because I don't want to worry about what streaming service it's on this week, or because I don't want to contribute to monopolization of some industry. And sure, I'd still pirate some things because I find they're overpriced. > I know I'll never win this argument on Hacker News because every piracy conversation turns into an infinite game of moving goalposts, where there's always a new rationalization at every turn. What argument are you referring to, out of curiosity? That some people pirate things 'cause they're poor and make nice-sounding rationalizations about it? Okay, that definitely happens, you win. But I don't think that really takes away from the other valid arguments for piracy?
•
What are these "valid arguments for piracy" you refer to? Content isn't food, shelter, or clothing. It's a "nice to have" in one's life. It's literally entertainment.
You are always going to find fringe users that would pirate everything no matter what. Hours of search, bad quality, bad audio? They don't care, they rather watch that shit than pay a buck for it. But they are fringe, an anomaly. Most people will happily pay for stuff if it's confortable enough. Don't focus on the tail end of the human behavior distribution. Steam makes a lot of money, the devs publishing there, too. Spotify makes a lot of money. Netflix makes a lot of money... Piracy is easily reduced to anecdotical as soon as you don't offer absolute shit service for a lot of money, as LaLiga does.
•
To the contrary, data suggests that games lose about 20% of sales if they're cracked on day 1. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/10/the-true-cost-of-game-piracy-20-percent-of-revenue-according-to-a-new-study/ Good service is still hard to compete with zero cost.
For many users it's just not true. I run a subscription weather forecast service for pilots, with a free trial period. A significant number of users reset their device every week to avoid paying 10 euros a month. These are aircraft owners .
•
Probably because resetting first is sufficiently easy for them, especially if they're not flying terribly often.
Just because you own an aircraft, doesn't mean you have a budget to pay random EUR 10/month subscriptions. People save money to buy expensive stuff. Or take out loans. One cannot assume that everyone doesn't care about spending < X dollars, where X is = 1% of the most expensive asset they own (see e.g. $3000 gaming PC vs. $30 software, elsewhere in the thread).
•
Everyone's poorer than you think, and sometimes the richest seeming people are under a mountain of debt. > own an aircraft, doesn't mean you have a budget to pay random EUR 10/month subscriptions. Still, if you can't afford a €10/mo subscription necessary to operate the airplane safely, when hanger fees are well in excess of that, then perhaps you can't actually afford to own an airplane? Airplanes aren't cheap to own, nevermind the aircraft itself. Put it another way. I like driving BMWs, but, y'know what, I hate having to pay insurance, and I can't afford to pay that after the monthly BMW lease payment, so I just don't pay it, cause fuck that noise. I don't think most people's response to someone saying that would be "eh, sounds fine, BMWs are expensive". "So don't drive a BMW." seems like more likely reaction to me.
I dunno, younger than 5-6 I think most children don't really understand plot lines or whatever anyways so it matters less, a cartoon in English is probably as fun and engaging as one in the native language.
•
The only reason not to dub a cartoon is that you're an adult who cares about quality and the dubbing is usually done for a smaller audience so it is going to be worse. There's no reason not to be dubbing cartoons for kids. That's a dorky debate for grown-ass adults playing animu purists.
> I don't want every villain in every movie have the same voice. Sounds like your problem is with crappy, cheap dubbing, not dubbing in general. Look at Disney animation for dubbing done right (and more so in the 20th century - these days I’m not so sure).
•
A cartoon is the worst possible example.
This is incredibly stupid, but don't laugh at Spaniards: your (and my) lawmakers are equally likely to enact similarly stupid laws. It's mind-boggling how stupid the world can be sometimes.
•
Not lawmakers in this case, but judges having no understanding of what they're ruling on.
•
The epitaph on the tombstone of this civilization shall read: Zealously mistook malice for stupidity .
•
This has not so much to do with the law, but the execution of it. It seems vastly inproportionate. And is likely severe overstepping. The issue is that spain does not have a backstop. It is a completely institutional failure. That's why you can laugh at them. Because this level of instutional failure should not happen where I come from.
> how stupid the world can be This isn't stupidity. It's corruption.
•
Speaking of which, the PM is surrounded by people a judge is currently indicting for various forms of corruption His wife, right hand man, etc What's that saying about the company you keep...
No one here is being "cut off from the internet" during the blocks, you grossly misunderstand what's happening here. If you're on a residential connection, during play of the matches, you can't access any of the Cloudflare IPs, but everything else keeps working as-is. Most businesses already migrated away from Cloudflare once these blocks started happening, so most of the affected people are the ones using services that rely on Cloudflare. As mentioned elsewhere, don't get me wrong, it sucks, makes no sense and I wish it went away, and I'll keep complaining to the ones I can about it, but "they're cut off from half the internet" isn't accurate unless somehow half the services you use happen to rely on Cloudflare (which, at least for me, isn't true, maybe 10% of what I use daily is affected by this).
•
I once had a day (and made a Tell HN about that too) where I couldn't access 3 of the links from the HN start page (and I didn't try all of them) during a match, because of that football IP block. It might not be half the internet, but I definitely felt like living in a country with massive censorship. And to me - given that I totally do not understand how people find watching football interesting in any way - for the most incomprehensible reason.
Ok, I'm sorry for the hyperbole of saying "half the internet" if it's in fact 10%. But come on, that's still massive. It's not a stretch for small businesses to be reliant on residential connections either.
•
No need to be sorry, it is a matter of how you define the percentage. If you would define it as "fraction of traffic generated by residential/home endpoints" you probably wouldn't be off that far. Maybe because Netflix does not use cloudflare, but if you say "CDNs make more than 50% of traffic to residential" you would definitely be right
Claude Code Routines (code.claude.com)
•
Haven't Github-triggered LLMs already been the source of multiple prompt injection attacks? Seems bad.
I'm the first to be tired of everyone, for every model, that says "uuuh became dumber" because I didn't believe them ... until this week! Opus is struggling worse than Sonnet those last two weeks.
•
Pretty reassuring to hear that. I was skeptical too, there's a lot of variables like some crap added to memory specific skill or custom instructions interfering with the workflow and what not. But now it was like a toddler that consumes money when talking.
This is massive. Arguably will be the start of the move to openclaw-style AI. I bet anthropic wants to be there already but doesn't have the compute to support it yet.
•
What’s massive about cron jobs and webhooks? I feel like I’m missing something. This is useful functionality but also seems very straightforward.
One gripe I have with Claude Code is that the CLI, Desktop app, and apparently the Webapp have a Venn Diagram of features. Plugins (sets of skills and more) are supported in Code CLI, maybe in Cowork (custom fail to import) but not Code Desktop. Now this? The report that they are 90% Ai code generated seems more likely the more I attempt to use their products.
•
Their source code leak showed how badly vibe coded Claude Code is, despite it being one of the best AI assistants. But yea there's some annoying overlap here with Cowork which also has scheduled tasks, in Cowork the tasks can use your desktop, browser and accounts which is pretty useful - a big difference from these Claude Code Routines.
LLMs and LLM providers are massive black boxes. I get a lot of value from them and so I can put up with that to a certain extent, but these new "products"/features that Anthropic are shipping are very unappealing to me. Not because I can't see a use-case for them, but because I have 0 trust in them: - No trust that they won't nerf the tool/model behind the feature - No trust they won't sunset the feature (the graveyard of LLM-features is vast and growing quickly while they throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks) - No trust in the company long-term. Both in them being around at all and them not rug-pulling. I don't want to build on their "platform". I'll use their harness and their models but I don't want more lock-in than that. If Anthropic goes "bad" I want to pick up and move to another harness and/or model with minimal fuss. Buying in to things like this would make that much harder. I'm not going to build my business or my development flows on things I can't replicate myself. Also, I imagine debugging any of this would be maddening. The value add is just not there IMHO. EDIT: Put another way, LLM companies are trying to climb the ladder to be a platform, I have zero interest in that, I was a "dumb pipe", I want a commodity, I want a provider, not a platform. Claude Code is as far into the dragon's lair that I want to venture and I'm only okay with that because I know I can jump to OpenCode/Codex/etc if/when Anthropic "goes bad".
•
This is a similar sentiment I heard early on in the cloud adoption fever, many companies hedged by being “multi cloud” which ended up mostly being abandoned due to hostile patterns by cloud providers, and a lot of cost. Ultimately it didn’t really end up mattering and the most dire predictions of vendor lock in abuse didn’t really happen as feared (I know people will disagree with this, but specifically speaking about aws, the predictions vs what actually happened is a massive gap. note I have never and will never use azure, so I could be wrong on that particular one). I see people making similar conclusions about various LLM providers. I suspect in the end it’ll shake out about the same way, the providers will become practically inoperable with each other either due to inconvenience, cost, or whatever. So I’ve not wasted much of my time thinking about it.
•
> I'm not going to build my business or my development flows on things I can't replicate myself. but you can replicate these yourself! i'm happy that ant/oai are experimenting to find pmf for "llm for dev-tools". After they figure out the proper stickyness, (or if they go away or nerf or raise prices, etc) you can always take the off-ramp and implement your own llm/agent using the existing open-source models. The cost of building dev-tools is near zero. it is not like codegen where you need the frontier performance.
•
I believe it doesn't matter, other companies will copy or improve it. The same happend with clawdbot, the amount of clones in a month was insane.
> I want to pick up and move to another harness and/or model with minimal fuss. Buying in to things like this would make that much harder. Yes, I expect that is very much the point here. A bunch of product guys got on a whiteboard and said, okay the thing is in wide use but the main moat is that our competitors are even more distrusted in the market than we are; other than that it's completely undifferentiated and can be swapped out in a heartbeat for multiple other offerings. How do we do we persuade our investors we have a locked in customer base that won't just up-stakes in favour of other options or just running open source models themselves?
•
I think they really knee capped themselves when they released Claude for Github integrations, which allows anyone to use their Claude subscription to run Claude Code in Github actions for code reviews and arbitrary prompts. Now they’re trying to back track that with a cloud solution.
I believe the current game everybody plays is: * make sure the model maxes out all benchmarks * release it * after some time, nerf it * repeat the same with the next model However, the net sum is positive: in general, models from 2026 are better than those from 2024.
•
yup, after the token-increase from CC from two weeks ago, I'm now consistently filling the 1M context window that never went above 30-40% a few days ago. Did they turn it off? I used to see the Co-Authored by Opus 4.6 (1M Context Window) in git commits, now the advert line is gone. I never turned it on or off, maybe the defaults changed but /model doesn't show two different context sizes for Opus 4.6 I never asked for a 1M context window, then I got it and it was nice, now it's as if it was gone again .. no biggie but if they had advertised it as a free-trial (which it feels like) I wouldn't have opted in. Anyways, seems I'm just ranting, I still like Claude, yes but nonetheless it still feels like the game you described above.
•
I guess there's a pretty clear incentive to nerf the current model right before the next model is about to come out.
•
Wouldn't that amount to fraud?
Put Claude Code on autopilot. Define routines that run on a schedule, trigger on API calls, or react to GitHub events... We ought to come up with a term for this new discipline, eg "software engineering" or "programming"
•
It's "promptramming".
I'm a little confused on the ToS here. From what I gathered, running `claude -p <prompt>` on cron is fine, but putting it in my Telegram bot is a ToS violation (unless I use per-token billing) because it's a 3rd party harness, right? (`claude -p` being a trivial workaround for the "no 3rd party stuff on the subscription" rule) This Routines feature notably works with the subscription, and it also has API callbacks. So if my Telegram bot calls that API... do I get my Anthropic account nuked or not?
•
Yeah in the span of a month or so we had: - SDK that allows you to use OAuth authentication! - Docs updated to say DO NOT USE OAUTH authentication unless authorized! [0] - Anthropic employee Tweeting "That's not what we meant! It's fine for personal use!" [1] - An email sent out to everyone saying it's NOT fine do NOT use it [2] Sigh. [0] https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview#get-started [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1r8et0d/update_from_anthropic_regarding_the_agent_sdk/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47633396
The ambiguity is intentional. Like Microsoft not banning volume licenses. They want to scare you, so you don't max out your subscription – which they sell at a loss. Another comparison would be "unlimited storage", where "unlimited" means some people will abuse it and the company will soon limit the "unlimited."
•
Literally yeah, the ambiguity is just so they can boycott anytime they want, people underestimate Anthropic too much, obviously they have insane amount of scrappers, bots... no comments online is made without their awareness and analyzed by a bunch of agents that then do prediction and for sure so much more. They know exactly what they are doing.
You are arguing something different. My point is that they must apply these restrictions. Do I think they could have calculated their growth a little better? Yes, of course, but hindsight is 20/20.
•
We might be talking past each other, I promise I'm not just trying to argue. > My point is that they must apply these restrictions. I fully understand and respect they need restrictions on how you can use your subscription (or any of their offerings). My issue is not there there _are_ restrictions but that the restrictions themselves are unclear which leads to people being unsure where the line is (that they are trying not to cross). Put simply: At what point is `claude -p` usage not allowed on a subscription: - Running `claude -p` from the CLI? - Running `claude -p` on a Cron? - Running `claude -p` as a response to some external event? (GH action, webhook, etc?) - Running `claude -p` when I receive a Telegram/Discord/etc message (from myself)? Different people will draw the line in different places and Anthropic is not forthcoming about what is or is not allowed. Essentially, there is a spectrum between "Running claude by hand on the command line" and "OpenClaw" [0] and we don't know where they draw the line. Because of that, and because the banning process is draconian and final with no appeals, it leads to a lot of frustration. [0] I do not use OpenClaw nor am I arguing it should be allowed on the subscription. It would be nice if it was but I'm not saying it should be. I'm just saying that OpenClaw clearly is _not_ allowed but `claude -p` wouldn't be usable at all with a subscription if it was completely banned so what can it (safely) be used for?
You'd think that if they were compute-limited ... Trying to get people to use it less ... The rational thing to do would be to not ship features that will use more compute automatedly? Or does this use extra usage?
•
They are more worried about building a moat than anything else. They want people building integrations that are difficult to undo so that they lock into the platform.
If you’re trying this for automating things on GitHub, also take a look at Agentic Workflows: https://github.github.com/gh-aw/ They support much of the same triggers and come with many additional security controls out of the box
•
+1 for that, having that said, because GH agentic workflows require a bit more handholding and testing to work, (and have way more guardrails, which is great, but limiting), and lack some basic connectors (for example - last time I tried it, it had no easy slack connector, I had to do it on my own). This is why I'm moving some of the less critical gh-aw (all the read only ones) to Claude Routines.
5NF and Database Design (kb.databasedesignbook.com)
•
My brain has been blunted too far due to dynamodb and NoSQL storage usage and now I can’t even normalize anymore
what a marvelous motto <3. Certainly a lot more concise than the article or the works the article references.
•
Imperative mood "normalize" assumes that you had something not-normalized before you received that instruction. It's not useful when your table design strategy is already normalization-preserving, such as the most basic textbook strategy (a table per anchor, a column per attribute or 1:N link, a 2-column table per M:N link). And this is basically the main point of my critique of 4NF and 5NF. They both traditionally present an unexplained table that is supposed to be normalized. But it's not clear where does this original structure come from. Why are its own authors not aware about the (arguably, quite simple) concept of normalization? It's like saying that to in order to implement an algorithm you have to remove bugs from its original implementation — where does this implementation come from? The other side of this coin is that lots of real-world design have a lot of denormalized representations that are often reasonably-well engineered. Because of that if you, as a novice, look at a typical production schema, and you have this "thou shalt normalize" instruction, you'll be confused. This is my big teaching pet peeve.
•
> But it's not clear where does this original structure come from. Why are its own authors not aware about the (arguably, quite simple) concept of normalization? I find the bafflement expressed in the article as well as the one linked extremely attractive. It made both a joy to read. Were I to hazard a guess: Might it be a consequence of lack of disk space in those early decades, resulting into developers being cautious about defining new tables and failing to rationalise that the duplication in their tragic designs would result in more space wasted? > The other side of this coin is that lots of real-world design have a lot of denormalized representations that are often reasonably-well engineered. Agreed, but as the OP comment stated they usually started out normalised and then pushed out denormalised representations for nice contiguous reads. As a victim of maintaining a stack on top of an EAV schema once upon a time, I have great appreciation for contiguous reads.
•
> Might it be a consequence of lack of disk space in those early decades A plausible explanation of "normalization as a process" was actually found in https://www.cargocultcode.com/normalization-is-not-a-process/ ("So where did it begin?"). I hope someday to find some technical report of migrating to the relational database, from around that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_tuple_normal_form is cool! Since I had bad memory, I asked the ai to make me a mnemonic: * Every * Table * Needs * Full-keys (in its joins)
•
I have so many questions about that. Should that normal form basically replace 5NF for the purposes of teaching? Why do they hate us and do not provide any illustrative real-life example without using algebraic notation? Is it even possible? I just want to see a CREATE TABLE statement, and some illustrative SELECT statements. The standard examples always give just the dataset, but dataset examples are often ambiguous. > (in its joins) Do you understand what are "its" joins? What is even "it" here. I'm super frustrated. This paper is 14 years old.
For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas (e360.yale.edu)
I don't think this article did the math right. In the linked source from the article ( https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=United+States&metric=absolute&fuel=total&tab=main&chart=trend&mode=stacked&multi=true&temporal_res=monthly&date=2026-03-01&date_from=2022-03-01 ), in 03/2026 combined generation from hydro (26 TWh), wind (53), solar (27.7), bioenergy (3.82), and other renewables (1.51) is 112.03 TWh, vs 120 TWh for natural gas. It's still an impressive number but it is still slightly less than natural gas.
•
UPDATE: Solar was 37.6, not 27.7. I'm not quite sure where I got the incorrect number from. The corrected total is 121.93, which is indeed greater than the 120 for natural gas. I apologize for the error but I can't edit my original comment anymore so I'll just post the correction here. Thanks to mekdoonggi and 0xdde for correcting my mistake.
Extending the life of existing power infra is low-hanging fruit for more power short term, but the economics of renewables are just unstoppable. Article states 93% of new generation capacity was renewable which is good, but I can sense that nimbyism is growing towards wind and solar. Not to mention the animus towards China who has wisely cornered manufacturing of these. The US has shot itself in the foot because of its energy dependence on its own energy source. The resource curse strikes again.
•
The WTO found that China cornered the market with illegal dumping. Of course the investigations and punishments are too little too late.
•
That may be the case, though from a US perspective, in terms of "unilaterally acting to gain control of other markets" being bad, we aren't a position to criticize.
In theory that works as long as you're willing to let the price reflect actual supply and demand even when the difference is very large, e.g. it has been cloudy and still for a couple weeks so the batteries are low and then you get a hot summer day or cold winter night with a lot of demand. No problem, we'll just set the price to "high enough to get people to stop cooling/heating their buildings" and the market will clear. But people aren't going to like that.
•
It’s not something that’s likely to happen at the retail level, but at the industrial level. Battery farms buying power when the price is low or negative (due to too much wind/solar) and selling when the price is higher (early evening). Aluminum smelters curtailing. Etc. There is something interesting happening in the retail space, though, called a “virtual power plant.” Worth googling if you’re curious.
The demand can be more elastic than you envision. If power is expensive on a given day, electric cars can wait to charge, or even discharge if they aren't going to be used. People can wait to run laundry dryers. The market will incentivize actors to smooth out before those kinds of restrictions are necessary. People might not like changing their habits to follow the energy, but they'll probably be pretty happy when the end result is both good for the environment and cheaper overall. At least in my corner of the Midwest, either the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and often both.
•
> If power is expensive on a given day, electric cars can wait to charge, or even discharge if they aren't going to be used. People can wait to run laundry dryers. That buys you days, not weeks. The smoothing out things also have kind of an ugly failure mode. People set their cars to sell power into the grid if the price is X% above normal, but that prevents it from getting to be 2X% above normal on the first day, and then fewer people choose not to run their dryers. The batteries get exhausted sooner because their own existence prevented the price from going up very much at first, but that's the profit-maximizing strategy because nobody knows exactly how long the shortfall is going to be and the shorter ones are more common. Then the batteries get depleted quickly and when the shortfall lasts for more than a couple of days, you're not only low on battery storage, you now have more people whose cars have a charge gauge pointing to E and they need to get to work in the morning. > The market will incentivize actors to smooth out before those kinds of restrictions are necessary. It isn't a regulatory restriction. It's, where are you setting your thermostat if electricity hits $5/kWh today? > At least in my corner of the Midwest, either the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and often both. The problem is that it's occasionally neither and that doesn't have to happen very often to cause a lot of trouble.
Base load power cannot provide predictable rates because it provides a fixed amount of power that the market then bids on. If there's too much demand rates go up arbitrarily high. If there's too little rates go to zero. Dispatchable power is the only sort of power that provides 24x7 power with predictable rates. If there's more demand, you produce more power (at the same cost). If there's less, you produce less so you can sell what you do produce at the same cost.
•
Nope. What you're describing is an artifact of certain electricity markets work for spot prices. This is artificial, not inevitable. Large industrial customers often bypass those markets and contract directly with producers for fixed rates.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Let's Talk Space Toilets (mceglowski.substack.com)
I've always wondered about regular toilets and now this. Someone has to test it. I'm sure they have equivalent items to run through them but, eventually, you have to try the real thing so whose job is it to do that and how do they do that?
•
Welcome to the world of Maximum Peformance (or MAP ) testing. 22 municipalities and associations came together across the US and Canada to form a consortium to develop a 'standard' test (and test media) and test toilets to determine who flushes feces the fullest. https://map-testing.com/background/ (And really thorough history! https://map-testing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Background_detail-Dec-2025.pdf ) Apparently, a "MaP Premium" toilet is going to be the golden shitter.
•
One popular "equivalent" for flush testing is a condom full of soybean paste (yum!) https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/toilets-low-flow-trump-environment-cost-savings.html
Is it simpler to build a better space toilet, or to build a ship with centrifugal gravity and use a regular toilet?
•
This does sound absurd at first, but how much gravity is really needed for collection? Is there any value in just a few hundredths of earth gravity?
You could’ve told me this story without the context and I would’ve assumed it was a barracks game being played with surveillance equipment. Hilarious.
•
"Mom, Lise, check it out - Dad's on TV!" https://youtu.be/S5lihwyjk8w?t=30
The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work (aphyr.com)
I think you may have missed a subtle point: there is an especial risk from automation which almost always works correctly. The aviation industry calls the phenomenon "automation fatigue". It's very difficult for humans to stay alert and monitor systems like these, and the use of the systems tends to lead to de-skilling over time in the very skills required to monitor them and fix the (rare but fatal - at least in aviation) error cases when they occur.
•
And yet, aviation safety keeps improving. I didn't miss that point. I'm saying it's blown out of proportion, and that diminishes the value of the actually important content.
The interesting question to me at the moment is whether we are still at the bottom of an exponential takeoff or nearing the top of a sigmoid curve. You can find evidence for both. LLMs probably can't get another 10 times better. But then, almost literally at any minute, someone could come up with a new architecture that can be 10 times better with the same or fewer resources. LLMs strike me as still leaving a lot on the table. If we're nearing the top of a sigmoid curve and are given 10-ish years at least to adapt, we probably can. Advancements in applying the AI will continue but we'll also grow a clearer understanding of what current AI can't do. If we're still at the bottom of the curve and it doesn't slow down, then we're looking at the singularity. Which I would remind people in its original, and generally better, formulation is simply an observation that there comes a point where you can't predict past it at all. ("Rapture of the Nerds" is a very particular possible instance of the unpredictable future, it is not the concept of the "singularity" itself.) Who knows what will happen.
•
Anyone who believes in materialism should recognize that there is still a lot of room to improve.
>> Works flawlessly, debt principal down. I don't doubt it completed the initial coding work in a short time, but the fact that you've equated that with flawless execution is on the concerning-scary spectrum. I can only assume you're talking "compiles-runs-ship it" The danger is not generating obvious slop, it's accepting decent and convincing outputs as complete and absolving ourselves of responsibility.
•
You are right, and it happens that the output looks decent. Code idioms, or patterns if you will, is largely our solution. We have small pattern/[pattern].md files througout the code base where we explain how certain things should be done. In this case, the migration was a normalization to the specific pattern specified in the pattern file for the endpoints. Semantics was not changed and the transform was straight forward. Just not task I would be able to justify spending time on from a business perspective. Now, the more patterns you have, and the more your code base adheres to these patterns, the easier you can verify the code (as you recognize the patterns) and the easier you cal call out faulty code. It is easier to hear an abnormality in music than in atmospheric noise. It is the same with code.
I take your point but then it makes me think is there no more value in diversity? [Philosophy disclaimer] So in a code-base diversity is probably a bad idea, ok that makes sense. But in an agentic world, if everything is run through the Perfect Harness then humans are intentionally just triggers? Not even that, like what are humans even needed for? Everything can be orchestrated. I'm not against this world, this is an ideal outcome for many and it's not my place to say whether it's inevitable. What I'm conflicted on is does it even "work" in terms of outcomes. Like have we lost the plot? Why have any humans at all. 1 person billion dollar company incoming. Software aside, is the premise even valid? 1 person's inputs multiplied by N thousand agents -> ??? -> profit
•
These are the right questions to ask.
Rare concert recordings are landing on the Internet Archive (techcrunch.com)
I am an active and enthusiastic recordist and have decades of stuff I've accumulated over the years. One of the concerts I captured in the 90's, lives on as a bootleg which I often see around the scene of this one particularly great live electronic dance band, whose punters have created true value out of the hour and a half of live concert input I managed to record, standing right there front stage and center, with the band looking right at me. It was a hilarious experience - I expected to get booted out pretty fast, so I held my ground as still as I could, DAT-tape rolling by, shotgun mike held in front of me like it was just normal, as if I belonged there. The lead singer caught my eye and gave me a wide grin. I survived the concert, it was awesome, but boy was I relieved to have made it home with that DAT - which I of course, proceeded to digitize with my brand new spdf/io .. The next year the band (who are big and famous, btw) were in the same city and I happened to be around, I got invited backstage to meet the band, participate in a bit of nerdery regarding their live setup and gear and so on, and talk about that recording I'd made. I'd put it out as a pure bootleg, no questions asked. Turns out they'd heard it and enjoyed it and came to appreciate the nature of their bootleggers, as avid fans who gave the band themselves something extra to think about in what was then, a burgeoning digital/online universe about to explode. So, seeing it around, almost 30 years now .. here and there, again and again .. is quite hilarious. Youtube often recommends it to me in my playlist, its just there. And at a certain spot in the recording, I tell my mate to stop standing so close to me (he was blocking the shottie), and prepare for my ass getting bounced - which never happened, thankfully. So yeah, I just wanna say, if you personally have the desire to be a recordist, and have a pure purpose in it, I'd say just freakin' go for it. Record All The Things. Its good for the Artists, yo. And also their fans. (Its how we get rid of the managers, cough cough ..)
•
Great project, but it has an absolutely TERRIBLE UI. Please, if you love audio enough to put in the 95% of effort to get the files to the web, don't let everyone down with an atrocious interface to actually access those files. Please, get someone who knows about usability or building web UIs to help you!
NIN had a messy breakup with their original manager about 15 years into things. Once Trent Reznor emerged as more or less a free agent, he embraced radical approaches to distributing music and other media. The instrumental album "Ghosts I-IV" was released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license, and the music went everywhere - and you can draw a line directly from that choice to the Oscar for the score for The Social Network. Concert photos, wallpapers, and other photos are still up on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nineinchnails/albums And the NIN camp utilized Vimeo alongside YouTube: https://vimeo.com/ninofficial Rumor has it that Trent Reznor himself uploaded material to The Pirate Bay, because he didn't like the audio quality of the rips that were already floating around. There are three compilations that appeared, with custom artwork, including at least one exclusive version of a track that hasn't appeared anywhere else. (p.s. wot up volk)
•
Oh hey, I certainly know that username! And you're not going to plug yourself I certainly will: Appreciate your work on the NIN Hotline all these years and everything else you've done/added to the community. > Rumor has it that Trent Reznor himself uploaded material to The Pirate Bay, You'd certainly know better than I would but I feel like I recall Rob Sheridan confirming that in one of his interviews years later (not that there was really any doubt).
also common UK slang, for someone who constantly does things in the grey. to wit: scammer, scheister, player.
•
That's incorrect. In British slang it means a customer/patron. In this context a fan/concertgoer (Source: I'm British)
I wonder if a band could put together a live stream concert published to a private stream sent to a movie theater. A bunch of fans of the band could get together and have the concert experience with fellow fans but not have to pay as much as an in-person concert. Movie theaters would have another way to get people in the door.
•
This definitely happens. Last time Dead & Company came to town, it was simulcast in the local movie theater. Tickets to the show were only available on a raffle basis since the venue didn't hold nearly enough people. Then again, the Dead were also pioneers of permitting and encouraging the bootleg scene.
King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard (yes really) do this, but not just for people who buy tickets to the show. They have 444 concerts up on Archive.org for free to all. https://archive.org/details/KingGizzardAndTheLizardWizard Plenty of other artists have free concert archives at https://archive.org/details/etree
•
since they have been doing orchestral performances, getting to hear the orchestral versions of their old songs has been amazing.
Are you certain Faith No More did the cover? There's certainly a Mr. Bungle version [0] from a San Francisco gig in 1990. I remember grabbing this from the Bungle Fever FTP site back in around '99. I'd often download the bootlegs, burn them to audio CD and print out a cover of the gig poster if one was available. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTfSrUThyDk
•
That's exactly the one I have! No surprise that it was mislabeled. Same vocalist, so that tended to happen before broadband was widely available. I even downloaded a song (Nebula) from Incubus's SCIENCE that was misattributed to Mr Bungle. To be fair, the singer plausibly could have been said to be doing a Mike Patton imitation. Now that I think more about it, I must have got the track from a P2P service / network. But I had a bajillion Nirvana bootlegs when I was an adolescent. Thinking of the misnaming phenomenon, the hidden track (from Nevermind) was alternately named either "I Hate Myself and I Want to Die" or "I Love Myself and I Want to Live" on those live performances (after Cobain's suicide). 1990s and no or limited internet, so it was whatever someone decided. Thanks for surfacing the track so readers can hear it! It's one of my favorites.
Mike Patton loves pop music. Those covers were most likely not mocking anything. I love me some Faith No More but haven't heard them cover Nothing Compares 2 U (which is actually a Prince tune). I'll have to check it out. EDIT: You weren't kidding. I can't find a cover of it. Please! Share it!
•
FNM’s cover of the Commodore’s Easy is both ridiculous and sublime. Man they can play. There was a good bbc show of theirs floating around on YouTube. The music is so intense that I feel these quieter pieces give one a chance to catch one’s breath.
•
See sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47768467
 Top