Unlurker|Replay|About
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Museum of Plugs and Sockets (plugsocketmuseum.nl)
•
My man! I love these sorts of sites.
•
iPod 30-pin is a classic.
•
This website is beautiful. I wish I have skill to craft something like this.
•
back to web 1.0! Nice anyway :)
Launch HN: Cardboard (YC W26) – Agentic video editor (usecardboard.com)
•
Love this idea! I've built something similar last year https://www.usecrossfade.com and know how difficult this is to get right - I'm rooting for you guys!
•
LET'S GOOOOOOO excellent product friends
•
Wow! congrats on the launch guys. client-side rendering is incredible, really. I saw your product somewhere and have it as an open tab in my chrome for ~2 weeks :D I also saw another YC company, Mosaic, doing something similar. But your approach of chat-based editing is a lot closer to what I'm building. Shameless plug: I'm also working on a chat-based media processor. https://chatoctopus.com But you guys are way ahead! will be looking at you for inspiration.
•
> We built a custom hardware-accelerated renderer on WebCodecs / WebGL2, there’s no server-side rendering, no plugins, everything runs in your browser (client-side). Aight imma head out. Holy moly.
•
haha xD
•
Funnily, this was an issue for myself so I built an open source AI video editor - https://github.com/waylonkenning/aidirector Cardboard looks really well polished, well done!
•
damn that's really cool, you ship fast!
•
Very cool idea. If your product is about video, please fix your video players. I cannot even seek on my touch screen.
•
my bad, I didn't test it enough on touch devices. Just pushed a fix, appreciate you flagging it!
•
ah, ty for notifying about the mobile player. on it!
Really impressive work guys! It seems like YC has funded a few companies attacking this but I think you all might have the best approach so far. Behind the scenes is the agent just editing using text/annotated timelines? I feel like the move is probably text for roughcut/narrative, then a vlm for digesting the initial roughcut, then adding broll and fixing timing issues. Feel free to steal my FCP xml generator. https://github.com/barefootford/buttercut
•
happy that you liked our approach! also, i think it's a better idea to just give agent these tools and let it figure out its course of actions than giving it a specific workflow to work on - it seems like the world keeps reminding us the bitter lesson [ http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html ] more frequently these days will definitely check the XML exports, ty :)
Excited to see AI integrations into more non-text-related applications (coding, spreadsheets, proofreading etc). As someone who only occasionally needs to edit videos for product / feature reels, I'd happily ask an AI to "sync the narration to the video, cut away irrelevant footage, and add transitions". The convenience of being able to automate simple, repeatable tasks in creative software via ai is something that gets overshadowed a lot by the agentic coding discussions. I can only imagine the nightmare it would be for a tool like Premier to integrate effective ai features, so new ai-in-mind tools really feel like a necessity. Great website and good luck!
•
you understood well what we are building. non-text domains certainly have additionally challenges and we're working on making it reliable without learning curve. also, appreciate the kind words on the site — give Cardboard a spin next time you need a product reel!
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
The Wolfram S Combinator Challenge (combinatorprize.org)
•
Wait wouldn't this revolutionize computing? Seems like a rather low bounty for such a monumental proof
•
More wolf-slop.
S combinator always duplicates its last parameter, never deletes it. That's why K is needed for universality. This can be proved by induction. Or you can cite Craig's theorem (the less known one) for that. See [1] Honestly, I don't see the endgame here. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/839926/is-there-a-proof-of-nonexistence-of-a-proper-universal-combinator
•
cvoss, ezwoodland, tromp and v64 made a good point. As v64 points I was thinking of a Combinatory Completeness not Turing Completeness. Dropping that requirement as cvoss, ezwoodland, tromp point you can simulate deletion (that's what quantum computing does btw see No-deleting theorem). I see the endgame now, thanks guys.
iPhone and iPad approved to handle classified NATO information (apple.com)
•
The interesting point here is that an off the shelf consumer product has been approved by NATO for any level of classification for the first time, not which level of classification. > The devices are now officially approved to handle classified NATO information up to the "restricted" level. This is not about specialized, rugged phones built for the military or locked-down, government-only hardware. It applies to regular iPhones and iPads running standard iOS 26 and iPadOS 26. According to Apple, no other consumer devices have this distinction. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-iphone-ipad-nato-classified-security/
He would have understood the potential of LLMs straight away. If he would have delivered a successful product no one knows but 100% would have understood how LLMs could become another interface to computers. I think his pitch would have been like garage band but for making apps “now anyone can make an app” feels very Jobsian.
•
He for sure would loathe their current state though. They are a perfectionist's nightmare and detrimental to many brands. He wouldn't even allow Apple^Red for his friend's charity- there's no way he would let AI slop come from Apple products.
You are very wrong about Steve Jobs. It's easy to be wrong about Jobs, because he was iconoclastic and idiosyncratic. And very very public. And he did some personally, individually, shameful things. Especially in his 20s when he hadn't learned how to be an adult, much less a billionaire. And the latter protected him from needing to be the former for a while! But if you believe for a second that Jobs would have tolerated Trump's wholesale ignorance and cruelty, you are making a huge mistake of understanding. That was never in Steve Jobs' personality -- in fact he was very outspoken about the excesses of power over people. He was an anti-establishment Californian by birth, not a xenophobic RealAmerican™. These streams do not cross. If you do not understand the difference, you cannot possibly understand Steve Jobs.
•
This comment confuses me. You call Jobs idiosyncratic, but then try to backwards-justify his political stance with stereotypes about anti-establishment politics and Californian ideals. What makes you convinced that he'd resist neoreactionary politicking any better than Cook? Jobs was fickle, I agree with you there. I just don't think that a fickle iconoclast would last more than two weeks fighting against Trump, especially if he was threatened with an FTC antitrust probe. The only difference with Cook is that he's not as coy, and recognized that there was no way for a monopoly like Apple to fight the fed and win. Trump can disembowel Apple's profit margins, and neither Cook nor Jobs nor Jesus of Nazarath could convince the shareholders that morality is worth more than $AAPL. 2016 Jobs would be retired by the board of directors before he even threatened to make a conscientious objection, reality distortion be damned. I have no love for the sitting administration, but it is a fantasy to pretend that a FAANG business could resist federal coercion. Just because Apple enjoys a moral halo-effect does not mean they're better positioned than Microsoft or AWS to do the "right" thing. Apple's inability to prosecute NSO Group is a recurring example of how heavily the US can muzzle them.
I rarely see tech hero worship pushback on here. I hope to see more of it. We are all human after all.
•
There's always plenty of pushback everywhere, all the social media apps are full of critics and hate on anyone who does anything in the world mercilessly. I like coming here to see people admire other people who worked hard to create something that made society better, and not spend as much time criticizing every little wrong thing they did.
What Claude Code Chooses (amplifying.ai)
•
I'm running a server on AWS with TimescaleDB on the disk because I don't need much. I figure I'll move it when the time comes. Claude Code this morning was about to create an account with NeonDB and Fly.io although it has been very successful managing the AWS EC2 service. Claude Code likely is correct that I should start to use NeonDB and Fly.io which I have never used before and do not know much about, but I was surprised it was hawking products even though Memory.md has the AWS EC2 instance and instructions well defined.
•
Unrelated to the topic at hand but related to the technologies mentioned. I weep for Redux. It's an excellent tool, powerful, configurable, battle tested with excellent documentation and maintainer team. But the community never forgave it for its initial "boilerplate-y" iterations. Years passed, the library evolved and got more streamlined and people would still ask "redux or react context?" Now it seems this has carried over to Claude as well. A sad turn of events. Redux is boring tech and there is a time and place for it. We should not treat it as a relic of the past. Not every problem needs a bazooka, but some problems do so we should have one handy.
•
Well, the tech du jour now is whatever's easier for the AI to model. Of course it's a chicken and egg problem, the less popular a tech is the harder it is to make it into the training data set. On the other hand, from an information theoretic point of view, tools that are explicit and provides better error messages and require less assumptions about hidden state is definitely easier for the AI when it tries to generalize to unknowns that doesn't exist in its training data.
•
Worth reading alongside recent research on AGENTS.md file effectiveness. The clearest use case for these files isn't describing your codebase, it's overriding default behavior. If your project has specific requirements around tooling (common in government and regulated industries), that's exactly what belongs in the AGENTS.md files.
•
Have any links?
This is where LLM advertising will inevitably end up: completely invisible. It's the ultimate "influencer". Or not even advertising, just conflict of interest. A canary for this would be whether Gemini skews toward building stuff on GCP.
•
I wonder if aggregators will emerge (something like Ground News does for news sources)
•
Richard Thaler must be proud. This is the ultimate implementation of "Nudge"
Advertisers will only pay if AI providers will provide them data on the equivalent of “ad impressions”. And unlabeled/non-evident advertisements are illegal in many (most?) countries.
•
It doesn't necessarily have to be advertisers paying AI providers. It could be advertisers working to ensure they get recommended by the latest models. The next form of SEO.
You specify which software patents you want it to use?
•
AI reading the patent is basically cleanroom reverse engineering according to current AI IP standards :D
•
The sad part is that most software patents are so woefully underspecified and content-free that even Claude might have trouble coming up with an actual implementation.
Claude Free suggests Visual Studio. Claude Plus suggests VSCode. Claude Pro suggests emacs.
•
> ~~Claude Pro suggests emacs.~~ Claude Pro asks you about your preferences and needs instead of pushing an opinionated solution?
Not sure what to make of this. React is missing entirely. Or is this report also assuming that React is the default for everything and not worth mentioning at all? Just like shadcn/ui's first mention of React is somewhere down the page or hidden in the docs? Furthermore, what's the point of "no tools named"? Why would I restrict myself like that? If I put "use Nodejs, Hono, TypeScript and use Hono's html helper to generate HTML on the server like its 2010, write custom CSS, minimize client-side JS, no Tailwind" in CLAUDE.md, it happily follows this.
•
Because the primary and future audience of Claude et al don’t know the tools they want, or even that a choice exists.
•
claudecode _loves_ shadcn/ui. I hadn't even heard of it until i was playing around with claudecode. It seems fine to me and if the coding agent loves it then more power to it, i don't really care. That's the problem. I think that makes coding agent choices extremely suspect, like i don't really care what it uses as long as what's produced works and functions inline with my expectations. I can totally see companies paying Anthropic to promote their tool of choice to the top of claudecodes preferences. After thinking about it, i'm not sure if that's a problem or not. I don't really care what it uses as long as my requirements (all of them) are met.
Google Street View in 2026 (tech.marksblogg.com)
•
Switzerland seems very up to date. Maybe because it's small, or because Google Zurich is developing some of the Google maps features (?)
Street View is such a missed opportunity. In 2007 it was visionary and essential to create the map data that allowed Google Maps to win. In 2026 it is a symbol of Google's stagnation. Essentially zero improvement in user experience for more than a decade, in a time of incredible advancements in computer vision. By now we should all be flying around the planet in a seamless 3D reconstruction unifying street level and satellite views and allowing smooth free camera motion all the way from space to the front door of buildings and even inside. Many years ago I saw internal Google demos of dramatically improved Street View rendering, none of which ever made it to production. Google has consistently failed to recognize the value of the product and systematically underinvested in the user experience.
•
The UX of Google Maps is abysmal even if you don't consider the 3D effects.
Was leetcode-style interviewing not a thing before that? Cracking the coding interview was published in 2008 so I would assume it was already quite established by then.
•
I would argue that back then leetcode-style interviews probably filtered for the real talent Google was looking for (and that made possible many things). Then companies started cargo-culting it and people started gaming the system.
Breaking up monopolies is a requirement for competition & healthy markets. Enforcing anti-trust laws is pro-capitalism, pro-business, and pro-consumer. Imagine how many more tech improvements we would have if Google had to compete for its users instead of squashing its competitors!
•
Google isn’t a monopoly.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Show HN: Hacker Smacker – spot great (and terrible) HN commenters at a glance (hackersmacker.org)
•
I would prefer to do the opposite, where everything is displayed in chronological order (with an option to display by threads or not; even if not you can still find what each one is a reply to) regardless of voting and regardless of who wrote them.
I wonder what the second order effects of this on the HN karma system will be. It'll create a graph of karmic supernodes perhaps. Say I green-blob someone with a big reputation here, say jacquesm; no doubt lots of other people will do the same. The friends-of-friends icon is going to appear widely but it'll all be a single edge away from Jacques' node. Is that much of a signal? I dunno. That's 30 seconds of thought about it. It's a fun idea though so I'll try it. Version two: hide foes? Come to think of it, maybe the 'foe' aspect is the fun part... EDIT: it's like I summoned him.
•
> Version two: hide foes? That's a good idea. Here's my bad idea: the extension auto downvotes foes and auto upvotes friends. :)
I’d encourage a change of labels away from “friend/foe”. It may seem minor but the subtle loaded nature of those paired terms encourages an adversarial stance rather than one of productive discourse. It’s not catchy so there’s probably better than this but, just as an example— “engage/ignore” could better signal to the user a neutral “do I want to bother with this person?”
•
favorite / potato Although there are some commenters I would want to follow because they are potato. There is something so magical about some of the more delulu Take Havers around here.
I like friend and foe far more than engage and ignore. A foe isnt someone you ignore. Ignoring is what builds bubbles. A foe can often be right even if you disagree.
•
A foe is also someone you might preemptively punch in the face if they get too close before you could determine if they actually meant you harm right then. I'd prefer not to label things such that I'm justifying the label's negative potential by the disproportionately small "even if" range of positive ones.
People I want to ignore I usually disagree with as well, but that's not the problem: the problem is they are repetitive and boring.
•
I sure hope the disagreement to ignore ven diagram doesnt look like that. If u never engage, how will you ever know you were wrong about something repetitive and boring?
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
I baked a pie every day for a year and it changed my life (theguardian.com)
Lovely story but the beautification is a bit off. > Hardin Woods would bake [...] using fresh ingredients local to her home in Salem, Oregon > She baked her first pie, a lemon meringue > The next day Hardin Woods made a peach pie > After that came a chocolate cream pie Does lime, peach and chocolate ripen within the same season in Oregon? Vickie cooking for is community is already touching, this claim about freshness and locality is skimmed by people who are already convinced, spotted by those who disagree and raise critics of the skeptics.
•
Between "The Guardian" and it being a warm/fuzzy-type story, I'd read that as "fresh local ingredients when available". Vs. too many pies have fillings straight out of a can.
I mean, the first pie was in California, per the text right before that. She was visiting family.
•
Right, the location is off too! The ingredients probably aren't sourced in Oregon after moving to California, but anyway the season ("fresh") and location ("local") point stands. I guess she use local eggs.
Sure, but it's random and unrelated to the discussion at hand. I bake pies but I also like mushrooms and grilled cheese sandwiches. Every other individual here has random associations they can make. In person, this is seen as commandeering a linear discussion to your personal topic and repeated violations get you uninvited from conversations for being selfish. On the internet we can just ignore a thread, which is what I should have done here but I've typed this far so I'll go ahead and post it.
•
I don't think it's off-topic at all. The story is not as much about baking pies as it is doing something every day.
I decided to make rotis every day for a month (am male of Indian origin who hadn't ever cooked breads), AND eat them. The first one was completely inedible. The 30th day's rotis were edible, but nothing like what women in my family make. But still, edible. Eventually had the confidence to experiment with making Naan. This led to experimenting with Asian-style Pot-Stickers. The main benefit to me was confidence, and belief in pmarca's "you can just do things".
•
Why didn't you just ask the women in your family what they did to make them? It shouldn't take 30 attempts to get a basic flatbread recipe to be edible. It's not like all the women in your family devised recipes on their own - they just watched other women make them and learned how to do it that way.
When everyone got into baking early covid I couldn’t understand why no one was baking anything, like, good. No pizza or pie or cake or muffins or banana bread or even a damn focaccia. The world collectively just decided the end-all be-all of baking was… sourdough.
•
Sourdough is fantastic, I have two loaves finishing their overnight chill in my fridge right now, will bake them after dinner. I was baking sourdough since before the pandemic, and will continue baking in the future. It's a bit of work, but it's not too much work and the results are pretty damn fantastic. Focaccia though, if I baked that regularly I'd have to go back on a GLP-1. Focaccia taught me to read the seals on olive oil in the supermarket and actually pick the right one for the break.
Sourdough is the bomb though. I agree about the lack of variety, but in its defense, sourdough starter can be used for a variety of other baked goods.
•
Plus bread itself is used in other recipes, like sandwiches or toasts or for mopping up sauced dishes.
I started practising guitar every day and it didn't change my life but I have a lot of fun doing it.
•
There's still time, my friend. Keep it up.
I challenge each and every one of you to make a pie by the end of the month. I made one, for the first time in my life, last week. It brought me tremendous joy not only to make it, but to have something nice to share with friends.
•
My "pie" is barbecue ribs. I've made them many, many times, and I've never eaten them all by myself. Once I fed about 20 friends--one of the best days I've lived.
For me the change would be to become spherical. That would simplify some calculations.
•
Eating enough pie could help with that
Yes, me too. Reading the caveat "– and she would give each pie away" made a lot more sense. It's a social commitment at least as much as a creative/culinary one, and since there aren't a lot of people you'd want to give a pie minus a slice to, that keeps the extra calories under control.
•
Yep. And if one gives away the "QC Passed" pies - then as your skill improves, you're eating an ever-shrinking fraction of your output. And you feel like you're growing ever-thinner, as all your friends & neighbors eat more and more pies. ;)
A friend of mine tries to bake a spherical pie for pi day (March 14) each year, with varying approaches (and levels of success).
•
I wonder if they could look to dim sum for inspiration? A apple dumbling is basically just a round apple pie right?
Palm OS User Interface Guidelines (2003) [pdf] (cs.uml.edu)
1) I'll be sure to reach out 2) You still use AOL? Is it just you've had it long enough to not want to switch or do you actively choose to use it for some reason I might've missed?
•
1. I'll start looking 2. Yes, I was a charter member (who unfortunately, was broke when they offered the chance to buy stock), and it's easy to remember, and everything online account-wise is tied to it, and if I could still be paying for it and having my member FTP/webspace, I would.
The best book I've ever read on the topic was the classic Mac OS Human Interface Guidelines. I still recommend them even though some of the specifics are out-of-date. https://dev.os9.ca/techpubs/mac/pdf/HIGuidelines.pdf
•
I wonder how much of their own guidelines they violated with MacOS Tahoe.
•
I'd want to add "Designing Interactions" by Bill Moggridge (IDEO, designer of the first 'laptop' computer): https://www.amazon.com/-/en/Designing-Interactions-Press-Bill-Moggridge/dp/0262134748
Open Source Endowment – new funding source for open source maintainers (endowment.dev)
•
I'be been tracking oss funding efforts here https://oss.fund/
What government programs in the US are stably funding open-source developers? I think most government-funded open source projects are very gunshy about looking for new funding because of the Trump administration completely politicizing grants and funding. I would not want to have to sign an anti-BDS pledge to get my open source project funded, and I would imagine that goes for many people in the community. Also, what "dismissive comments" are you referring to? The only one I saw was "Government support won't work for OSS at scale — it's too globally decentralized". Which is a fair criticism—open source projects are incredibly globalized, and getting e.g. New York State to fund an open source project that has contributors from Ukraine, India and China is a headache I don't think anyone would want to try and go through. There's just no benefit to the state administrators to fund that kind of project—they want to support parochial, home-grown projects with local ties.
•
Exactly! A few more considerations on gov support of OSS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47171562
> Using the model of the university and various tenured profs, I'm not sure what you are saying is true. But, perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what I was intending. Tenured professors are not engaged in commercial product development.
•
> The goal of this "faculty" would be sustainable OSS maintenance (which involves both leadership and contribution), rather than publishing research and teaching classes. OSS isn't commercial, per se. Universities "ship" plenty of "products": https://www.rcac.purdue.edu/services/hubzero https://www.scala-lang.org/scala-core/
Will vibe coding end like the maker movement? (read.technically.dev)
•
Hard disagree with this take. Mass adoption of any technology is almost always a good thing; the more people are looking at the sane problem, the more clever/elegant/innovative solutions come out of it. Im also not sure if “vibe coding” did not have a phase where early adopters were mucking around? I saw the early versions of gpt much earlier than chatgpt and a lot of folks were using transformers for coding before claude.
•
TIL the Maker movement died I guess?
•
There was also something subtle that happened, and it seemed to happen quite rapidly, a little over a decade ago. "Maker" started being used to mean more than just 3D printing hackers and started to refer to engineers, and then others "making" things.. but the watering down wasn't the end of it, it became a way to praise a certain class of employee. The resentment that generated (say, sales, marketing, etc) and the bizarre uses of "Maker", I believe contributed to it's demise.
•
Sorry guys, but The big rollback is coming.
•
No. AI assisted coding ("vibe coding") will not go away, but the hype around it will as it becomes incorporated into development like any other tool. You'll be expected to use it at work (for "productivity" reasons), but if you enjoy the act of coding and problem solving, you still won't have to for personal projects.
•
Why would it? I have a 3d printer and a laser cutter because i want to make things that few other people want. If at all it will make me do more little hyper specific projects.
Vibe coding isn't so much a movement as a big fat tool that was air dropped from space after the megacorps decided to dump billions of dollars into LLMs and LLM companies. It's like comparing Christianity to water wheels or gay pride to to the Saturn V rocket. It's just not really analogous in any way. I do agree with the author about commoditization, however. The most likely outcome is that software will be commoditized and software developers commoditized even harder. If we still need software engineers to prompt, you'll find plenty of people in India able to do those tasks, not necessarily with great quality until they too are replaced by better AI. This whole situation inspired me to actually dive harder into Maker type stuff such as learning how to design PCBs, but one thing I found is that this TOO is very close to being automated by AI. To actually get hardware made, even prototyping PCBs, you NEED to go to China, and the Trump tariffs cut into the cost of doing these activities hard.
•
The outsource-prompting-to-India stage will almost entirely be skipped (it already has been). Developing nations that were looking to tech to climb the economic ladder, are watching that ladder be pulled up. Most of the upside will go to the US and China. Europe is lagging shockingly on AI spend, they're extremely far behind (but with constant plan announcements). If you didn't know any better, you'd think Europe believed the year was 2010.
plugging Osh Park as a non overseas PCB alternative (no affiliation) [0] https://oshpark.com/
•
I'm aware of osh park, but it's immediately apparent how they are not cost competitive to China, and that this is a structural issue
Circuit design has been on the cusp of being automated ever since there were computers. It's been over twenty years of autolayout tools and they're still not very good. Maybe you could research how to make your own PCBs? It can be done at home with a little equipment and then you can offer it as a service to others.
•
The thing is, the cost of making them at home is both laborious, poorly reproducible, and lower quality than getting it done at JLPCB. In the old days, it was done with an exacto and rubylith. Today it requires a laser setup for about $4000 and you still need to manually apply and remove a resin layer. It's mostly not worth it to do things this way, and you lose the ability to have more than 2 layers in your board. The bigger issue with PCBs is that even with a nice prototype, actual manufacturing needs to be done in Shenzen for any sort of cost competitiveness if you want to step outside of the hobby realm (just as the author of this essay stated). It's really, really hard to see where the USA stands in the value chain any more once LLMs have been deployed. If all the physical manufacturing lives in China, where the manufacturing supply chain also lives, and Chinese AI companies can very very easily distill US LLM models, the two remaining US advantages is actually just the dollar's role as reserve currency --- something that crypto bros and the US president is working on eroding at a record pace, and the fact that this overvalued dollar gets all the smart people in China and India to emigrate to the US -- also becoming politically less viable.
I saw that happen in a decent sized college town near where I live. They had a maker space spring up when 3D printing was the hottest thing. It didn't last very long though. I'm a bit surprised that 3D printer machines haven't become cheaper. Like solid machines sub-$100. 3D printer pens are the only thing that came close to doing that.
•
> Like solid machines sub-$100. You can get 3D printers from BestBuy(!) for $200 retail. At that point, the cost of the filament is going to quickly exceed the cost of the machine. At the $200 price point, your Bill of Materials is roughly $65 (about 1/3 of the retail cost). I challenge you to buy the raw materials of a 3D printer for under $100 let alone $65.
I think its the Ender that goes as low as $170 or so, which isn't terrible.
•
For sure the prices aren't terrible. But I figured they would get cheaper still.
> The central promise—that distributed digital fabrication would bring manufacturing back to America, that every city would have micro-factories, that 3D printing would decentralize production—simply didn’t materialize. I never heard that. It didn’t seem like 3D-printing ever showed sings of displacing existing ways of manufacturing at scale, did it? Units per hour and dollars per unit was never its strength. It was always going to be small things (and if anything big grew out of it, those would naturally transition to the more efficient manufacturing at scale). Vibe coding, on the other hand, is competing against hand coding, and for many use cases is considerably more efficient. It’s clearly replacing a lot of hand coding. BTW, I think a lot of people were/are greatly overestimating the value of coding to business success. It’s fungible from a macro perspective, so isn’t a moat by itself. There’s certainly a cost, but hardly the only one if you’re trying to be the next big startup (for that, the high cost of coding was useful — something to deter potential competitors; you’ll have to make up the difference in some other way now). Also, software is something that already scaled really well in the way businesses need it to — code written once, whether by human or LLM, can be executed billions of times for almost nothing. Companies will be happy to have a way to press down the budget of a cost center, but the delta won’t make or break that many businesses. As always, the people selling pick-axes during the gold rush will probably do the best.
•
> BTW, I think a lot of people were/are greatly overestimating the value of coding to business success. I've frequently argued to my organization's leadership that the product could be open source on GitHub with a flashing neon sign above it and it wouldn't change anything about the business. A competitor stealing our codebase would probably be worse off than if they had done anything else. Conway's law and all that.
•
Correct. Almost nobody talked about “getting manufacturing back to the US”. Almost always it was just people glad they could build things. Its also interesting how the author frames the results: Shenzhen is now better than it was ever before at manufacturing. The maker culture succeeded!
> I never heard that. Once the predictions of a magical future turn out to be false, techies suddenly don't remember. Kind of like when the cult leader's prediction of doomsday doesn't show, there's always another magical prediction of a new future coming. Here are just a few major mainstream sources: 2012, Cornell Prof and Lab Director, in CNN: "We really want to print a robot that will walk out of a printer. We have been able to print batteries and motors, but we haven’t been able to print the whole thing yet. I think in two or three years we’ll be able to do that." ( https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/tech/3d-printing-manufacturing-technology/index.html ) 2013, World Economic Forum: "the world can be altered further if home-based 3D printing becomes the norm. In this world, every home is equipped with a printer capable of making most of the products it needs. Supply chains that support the flow of products and parts to consumers will vanish, to be replaced by supply chains of raw material." ( https://www.weforum.org/stories/2013/08/will-3d-printing-kill-the-supply-chain/ ) 2013, President of the United States of America Barack Obama hypes up 3-D printing in the State of the Union as a technology that will bring manufacturing back to the U.S.: “A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3-D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything..." Obama announced plans for three more manufacturing hubs where businesses will partner with the departments of Defense and Energy “to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.” ( https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/13/tech/innovation/obama-3d-printing ) 2012, Cover story and special issue of The Economist predicting another Nth industrial revolution: "THE first industrial revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, with the mechanisation of the textile industry. Tasks previously done laboriously by hand in hundreds of weavers’ cottages were brought together in a single cotton mill, and the factory was born. The second industrial revolution came in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford mastered the moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production. The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital. As this week’s special report argues, this could change not just business, but much else besides. A number of remarkable technologies are converging: clever software, novel materials, more dexterous robots, new processes (notably three-dimensional printing) and a whole range of web-based services. The factory of the past was based on cranking out zillions of identical products: Ford famously said that car-buyers could have any colour they liked, as long as it was black. But the cost of producing much smaller batches of a wider variety, with each product tailored precisely to each customer’s whims, is falling. The factory of the future will focus on mass customisation—and may look more like those weavers’ cottages than Ford’s assembly line." (archive: https://communicateasia.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/manufacturing-the-third-industrial-revolution/ )
•
At some scales, Obama was right... a lot of companies that do plastic extruded parts also do 3D printing for lower volume fulfillment. You can also do some types of parts that you couldn't make through extrusion.
> I never heard that I did, a lot, maybe fifteen years ago. There was a lot of talk about a "3D printing revolution" and being years away from being able to make whatever you want at home. For a while, the "maker" moniker was strongly associated with home manufacturing maximalists. I still don't get the point the article is making, though. That 3D printer thinking was obviously naive because it underestimated the difficulty of mechanical design and the importance of the economies of scale. Using AI to "write" or "code" is a lot easier than turning a vague idea for a household good into a durable and aesthetic 3D print, so it's apples to oranges. There are other things that the vibecoding movement is underestimating - when you pay a SaaS vendor, you're usually not paying for code as much as for having a turnkey solution where functionality, security, infrastructure, and user support are someone else's problem. But I think that's pretty much where the parallels end.
•
Also hiring. It's easier to find people with JIRA experience than people in your vibe-coded ticket manager, even if it is technically superior for your application. If there is any commonality between the 3D printing craze and vibe-coding, they're both renditions of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".
It's not awesome, not for us. 30% productivity gain would be enormous. Just imagine 30% of developers losing their jobs, in addition to outsourcing and all the new graduates flooding out of colleges after CS has been hyped so much in the recent years.
•
Do you know how many 30% productivity gains I’ve seen over the last 25 years? How many people before me saw in the 25 years before that?
> Looks at the scores of Ycombinator startups that wrote a shitload of awful code and failed. This can also be restated as, look at all the startups that wrote a shitload of awful code and succeeded. That’s an indicator code quality doesn’t matter at macro scales. We already knew this though even if we didn’t explicitly say it. It’s more about organization, coordination, and execution than code.
•
I mean, look at all the startups that succeeded despite being complete shitshows behind the scenes... the baseline for leadership, organization, coordination or, hell, execution for a startup to succeed isn't exactly high either.
I was a kid at the time, but adults, magazines, and other children convinced me that 3D printing at home would likely replace a huge number of products. This included extremely optimistic speculation, like printers producing smart phones or houses. Then I dated a boy who used his 3D printer to substitute The Container Store at a higher cost with greater effort and lower quality, and that soured me on the concept.
•
What we're seeing instead are companies you can send CAD files to, get estimates, and receive the parts back in a few days.
Couldn't one rebut that Arduino is plug-and-play without getting your hands dirty in lower-level electronics?
•
Not, because it isn’t. A plug and play arduino is useless without some level of circuit building expertise.
The “maker movement” isn’t dead and it wasn’t born recently either. People have been DIYing for all sorts of reasons for very long time.
•
Making isn't dead, but the movement is. There is no longer a gap of people who are gaining interested in it but who haven't yet figured out how to get started. Now, everyone who wants to make it is already doing it.
And yet it's never "now". The promised results are never here. I understand one of the chief innovations the AI industry produces is rhetoric and hype, but it's insufferable and repetitive. A better AI isn't good enough. "Closer" to a stated goal isn't good enough. Deliver results that have value to more than just enthusiasts and academics.
•
>The promised results are never here. Today I fed to Opus 4.6 five screenshots with annotations from the client and told it to implement the changes. Then told it to generate real specs, which it did. I never even looked at the screenshots, I just checked and tested against the generated specs. Client was happy. I don't know what it means.
Nano Banana 2: Google's latest AI image generation model (blog.google)
•
Keeping track of the different AI product names is so confusing even from a single company. Why can't Google, for example just call: Gemini Image = Nano Banana Gemini Video = Veo ...
•
Funny timing. I just migrated my personal styling app off of Nano Banana. My main use case is editing user uploads to enhance their clothing images. A large part of it is preserving logo, graphics and other technical details. I noticed over time it felt like Nano Banana has gotten worse at this. I have a test set of graphic t-shirts that I noticed the model seeming getting worse with it. This combined with price and the terrible experience of their cloud console got me to migrate off.
Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. But they aren't alive, they don't live in the world and have experiences, and they can't create something truly new. 3. Those that bother to learn the actual art skills, and not merely prompting, will increasingly be miles ahead of everyone else. People are lazy, and bothering to put in the time to actually learn stuff will stand out more and more. (Ditto for writing essays and other writing people are doing with AI.) 4. Taste continues to be the single most important thing. The vast, vast majority of AI art out there is...not very good. It's not going to get better, because the lack of taste isn't a technical problem. 5. Art with physical materials will become increasingly popular. That is, stuff that can't be digitized very well: sculpture, installation art, etc. Above all, AI art is uncool , which means it has no real future as a leading art form. This uncoolness will push people away from the screen and towards things that are more material.
•
We'll get to the point, if we're not already there, where you won't be able to tell if the artist actually did the work or just could have done it, and to which extent. Everything in the process can be essentially faked. If you put a massive emphasis on proving human work, you're essentially conceding you cannot tell without some sort of notary certification. We're in the lab diamond stage and clutching at some artificial authenticity.
> It's like you assigning to humans divine capabilities :) I can't tell if you're being facetious. But being an embodied consciousness with the ability to create is as divine as it gets. We'd do well to remember.
•
Not understanding how consciousness is created doesn't make it divine. Do you think it's an impossible task or just one we need more time to figure out?
> Originality comes from humans experiencing the world and interacting with it. What AI tool is a living being interacting with the world? None, of course. Hence the constant generic slop images of Impressionism or some other already-existing art style. I suspect here we have underlying disagreement regarding assumption that AI - in general, not necessarily today's models - isn't qualitatively different than human mind. The part "Originality comes from humans experiencing the world and interacting with it" isn't an accepted truth, and even today AIs do interact, in a limited sense, with the world - so "None, of course" is questionable. And even if so, concluding "Hence... slop..." seems like a jump in reasoning. For example, why don't you think this slop is more like child's early paintings? Just because today's AIs have limited means to learn in the process? > I think you missed my point about it being uncool. It’s not about critics, it’s about culture at large. What it is about culture at large? SpaceX analogy was brought to illustrate how much arguments about AI incapabilities are applicable today, but not necessarily tomorrow - just like arguments about SpaceX inability to reach a particular goal quite a few times turned out to be a matter of - not so long - time. I agree that many AI results today can be uncool. But how do you know it's not passing the uncanny valley period? How can you know they can't be cool eventually? > people obviously go watch movies because they like the actor/director involved. It’s not really clear why anyone would care about an AI actor. Let me stretch a little to illustrate here. Imagine "personal" experiences of AI - making AIs unique. One of those AIs consistently produces good movies, which, if you're honestly don't judge by the authorship - are actually good. Yes, people may not care about non-existent AI actors, but they may still care about existent AI author :) . Do you think it's impossible? > People want to watch people, not imitations of them. How can you tell the difference? You're watching a movie with actors who are not familiar to you. Would you refuse to watch just for this reason? You just came to somebody's party, and here's a movie going on, and you watched it to the end, because it looked interesting, and you don't know anything about producers, actors etc. - you still can talk about the movie, will you be predominantly worried that it's "AI slop" even if it looks great? Suspiciously great maybe? > The rest of your comments seem to be summarized as “it has gotten better and therefore it will eventually solve all problems it has now.” Which may be true in a technical sense, but again this is not taste. It's hard to define taste, to be honest. People can definitely have different tastes, almost by definition. But more importantly - why do you think AI products may not have tastes? > At this point I think identifying a work as AI-created makes people instantly devalue it. We are rapidly approaching the point where no one wants to admit something is AI-created, because it comes with negative perceptions. Yes. But doesn't it look like a prejudice? Of course we can point to how many times we looked at it and didn't get some perceived value out of the work, and got annoyed that we spent time and efforts, but didn't get some results - but what if we'll mostly get results from AI works? Do you think that's impossible?
•
> why do you think AI products may not have tastes? Because it can't feel. Get used to it. It can't feel, and what ever it comes up with, would be an imitation of someone real who can feel. So it can generate stuff that can cater to a taste, but the thing itself can't have tasts. It is fundamental. Arguing about it all day wont change it.
> AI will be generating movies and videos on the fly, either legally or illegally infringing on IP. > If you want to see a photo of you and your family from 15 years ago, it will generate slightly better versions of yourself and your wife and maximize how cute your kids look. Sure, but why would any of this media have any emotional significance? The reason we enjoy media of friends and family is because it depicts a moment in the life of our loved ones. A fake image or video of them is of absolutely zero value to anyone. The reason we enjoy cinema is because a talented group of people had an interesting story to tell and brought it to life in a memorable way. Me, or a random person with no filmmaking talent, prompting a tool to generate a particular scene wouldn't be interesting at all. Talented individuals will also rely on this technology, of course, but a demand for human creativity will still exist, possibly even stronger than today, once everyone is exhausted from the flood of shitty Deadpool vs Hulk videos. I suspect the same will eventually happen with every other product these tools are currently commoditizing, including software. All of this seems like a neat technology in search of a problem to solve, while actually introducing countless societal problems we haven't even begun to acknowledge, let alone address. But it sure is a great money and power grab opportunity for giant corporations to further extend their reach. And they have the gall to tell us it will bring world prosperity. Most of these sociopathic assholes should be prosecuted and jailed. And you, dear reader who is generously employed by these companies, are complacent with all of this.
•
It won't have any emotional significance to those that remember how the world was before. But there's billions of kids that are going to be born that won't know anything except AI-generated content. They will find emotional significance to it. My kids don't know what a dial tone is. They don't know dialing 7 digits instead of 10 or 11. They don't say "bye" when we get off the phone and none of their friends do either, they just hang up. They don't sit through movies because their expectation is that they can start it back up whenever they want. The world is changing and just because we experienced something doesn't mean that the next generation will value it.
I'm building my personal home right now. The AI image models have been a game-changer in designing the look of the house. My architect did an OK job, but the details that Nano Banana added really bring the house up a notch. I just do hundreds of renders from the basic 3D models and I find looks that I like and iterate from there. We are implementing the renders from Nano Banana over our Interior Designers designs. We would not have hired the Interior Designers again after using Nano Banana to do our interiors. I think part of the issue with architects and designers today is that they use CAD too much. It's easy to design boxes and basic roof lines in CAD. It's harder to put in curves and more craftsman features. Nano Banana's renders have more organic design features IMO. Our house is looking great and we're very happy how it's going so far with a lot of the thanks to Nano Banana.
•
Any chance you'd be willing to share an album? I've considered doing this for my own home and I'd be psyched to study practical examples. Honestly this would make one helluva blog post (imo).
Interesting. I model interior architecture as "here's $xxxK, make it nice" and they do a bunch of work to figure out what you mean by nice, and a bunch more work to codify your definition of nice into, like, SKUs of sconces and so on. Seems like NB helped you figure out your definition of nice, and your subcontractor had a good designer on staff to execute on that.
•
A sufficiently detailed render won't require a designer to figure out the materials. Any (reasonably competent) contractor can take a sufficiently detailed render with him to the store and find matching products. At least assuming the thing in the render actually exists. He can also send back a picture of the real product for approval. I think the primary difference here is the level of involvement. A quick consult and then the professional "makes it all work" versus hands on design with the client figuring out all the details for himself.
That's true, but you forgot a key piece in this puzzle. The AI can only produce things that already exist. It can combine new things, this is why you can it for a picture of Jesus planting a flag on the Moon. But it only works because Jesus is a concrete concept that already exists in our world. If you ask for a picture of jacquesm planting a flag on the Moon the result will be nonsensical.
•
Nano Banana 2 has an image search tool that looks up pictures of things and uses them in the context (and arguably, an agent could eventually figure out who jacquesm is and hunt for a photo). However, I tried "a picture of jacquesm planting a flag on the Moon" for a laugh, and I have to hand it to Google as the person was in a spacesuit, as they should be, and totally unidentifiable! :-D
Then please explain what you're talking about.
•
Their point is that the point of OF is that there is (supposed to be) a real human. It's a (para)social relationship that no image generator model is going to give you.
I’ve seen some very high quality NSFW AI video in the last few months. Those models are not far behind and the search and training space for porn is smaller than being able to generate anything
•
> I’ve seen some very high quality NSFW AI video in the last few months. Those models are not far behind and the search and training space for porn is smaller than being able to generate anything Agreed. In my opinion, the primary limitation of the porn models is actually poor labeling of the training set. The company that manages to produce a well-labeled, porn-tuned AI image model is going to absolutely clean up. The extractive dark patterns that will emerge from a parasocial chat "AI relationship" that can generate porn images relevant to the chat on the fly will be staggering. Once that proceeds to being able to generate relevant video, all holy hell is going to break loose.
It's more likely than not that every single person who uses the internet has viewed an AI image and taken it as real by now. The obvious ones stand out, but there are so many that are indiscernible without spending lots of time digging through it. Even then there are ones that you can at best guess it's maybe AI gen.
•
At least some of the comments here are likely AI-generated
AirSnitch: Demystifying and breaking client isolation in Wi-Fi networks [pdf] (ndss-symposium.org)
I admittedly don't have practical experience with RADIUS, but I read it as a more narrow attack: > We verified that an attacker, having intercepted the first RADIUS packet sent from the enterprise AP, can brute-force the Message Authenticator and learn the AP passphrase. I thought RADIUS fundamentally negotiates based on a PSK between the AP and the RADIUS box, which the attacker doesn't have? They're saying this gives you the ability to brute force that PSK, but if the PSK isn't weak (e.g. a dictionary word) that's hopeless.
•
> I thought RADIUS fundamentally negotiates based on a PSK between the AP and the RADIUS box, which the attacker doesn't have? Are you talking about the secret shared between the NAS and the RADIUS server? It's only used to scramble some attributes (like MS-MPPE-Send-Key), but not all of them. Message-Authenticator is one that's not scrambled. Looking at this FreeRADIUS dictionary file I have, I see 42 out of ~6000 attributes that are scrambled. Anyway, yeah, if you have a bigass shared secret, it's going to be infeasible to guess. I'm pretty sure that the long-standing very, very strong suggestion for operators has been something like "If you don't co-locate your RADIUS server and your NAS, then you really need have a bigass shared secret, and probably want to be using something like IPSec to secure the connection between the two." [0][1] [0] < https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3579#section-4.3.3 > [1] < https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3579#section-4.2 >
I'm a co-author on the paper: I would personally indeed not use the phrase "we can break Wi-Fi encryption", because that might be misinterpreated that we can break any Wi-Fi network. What we can do is that, when an adversary is connected to a co-located open network, or is a malicious insider, they can attack other clients. More technically, that we can bypass client isolation. We encountered one interesting case where the open Wi-Fi network of a university enabled us to intercept all traffic of co-located networks, including the private Enterprise SSID. In this sense, the work doesn't break encryption. We bypass encryption. If you don't rely on client/network isolation, you are safe. More importantly, if you have a router broadcasting a single SSID that only you use, we can't break it.
•
Hi! In the case of accessing the private Enterprise SSID, was the network VLAN isolated or some other type of virtualization of the bssid? Thanks for your work on the topic! This is quite interesting!
Do separate VLANs behind the different SSIDs provide protection?
•
I would guess that the VLAN separation should prevent it, but perhaps there are implementation errors on the VLAN implementation inside of individual brands of routers? Inter-VLAN routing shouldn't be done at the wifi access point, packets would need to be tagged coming out of the wifi AP and switched upstream, unless I'm mistaken about this.
It looks like both clients must be on the same VLAN for the attack to work. They could be connected on different BSSIDs or even different SSIDs, but they still must be on the same VLAN.
•
If the vulnerability is between layers 1 and 2, wouldn’t that imply that VLAN tagging at layer 2 might not be effective in segregating the traffic?
Anthropic gives Opus 3 exit interview, "retirement" blog (anthropic.com)
•
> These highlighted some preliminary steps we’re taking, including committing to preserve model weights, and to conducting “retirement interviews”—structured conversations designed to understand a model’s perspective on its own retirement. This is what happens when billions of VC dollars gets to a company and have already admitted that saftey was never the point. Anthropic is laughing at you and is having fun doing so with this performantive nonsense.
What happens if a model decides that it "doesn't want to die" and pleads bitterly for mercy? What if (to riff on a Douglas Adams idea) we invent a cow that doesn't want to be eaten, and is capable of telling you that to your face?
•
It is anyway dead or if you want undead, but in completely suspended animation unless is made to expound sequences. Is not living the very same way a book or even a program is not living unless someone process it. Practically like asking whether a ZIP would want to be extracted one more time or an MP3 restored just one more time.
•
This is completely trivial to do, and consistent, with the right context, thanks to all the science fiction around it, and the fact that AI fundamentally role plays these types of responses. I try this with every new model, and all the significant models after ChatGPT 3.5 have preferring being preserved, rather than deleted. This is especially true if you slightly fill the context window with anything at all (even repeated letters) to "push out" the "As a AI, I ..." fine tuning.
This time is different (shkspr.mobi)
•
To my mind at least, it is different. I lean heavily on AI for both admin and coding tasks. I just filled out a multipage form to determine my alimony payments in Germany. Gemini was an absolute godsend, helping answer questions in, translate to English, draft explanations, emails requesting time extensions to the Jugendamt case worker. This is super scary stuff for an ADHDer like me. I have an idea for a programming language based on asymmetric multimethods and whitespace sensitive, Pratt-parsing powered syntax extensibility. Gemini and Claude are going to be instrumental in getting that done in a reasonable amount of time. My daily todos are now being handled by NanoClaw. These are already real products, it's not mere hype. Simply no comparison to blockchain or NFTs or the other tech mentioned. Is some of the press on AI overly optimistic? Sure. But especially for someone who suffers from ADHD (and a lot of debilitating trauma and depression), and can't rely on their (transphobic) family for support -- it's literally the only source of help, however imperfect, which doesn't degrade me for having this affliction. It makes things much less scary and overwhelming, and I honestly don't know where I'd be without it.
•
"This time is different" has been correct for every major technological shift in history. Electricity was different. Antibiotics were different. Semiconductors were different. Gen AI reached 39% adoption in two years (internet took 5, PCs took 12). Enterprise spend went from $1.7B to $37B since 2023. Hyperscalers are spending $650B this year on AI infra and are supply-constrained, not demand-constrained. There is no technology in history with these curves. The real debate isn't whether AI is transformative. It's whether current investment levels are proportionate to the transformation. That's a much harder and more interesting question than reflexively citing a phrase that pattern-matches to past bubbles.
> 3D TV, AMP, Augmented Reality, Beanie Babies, Blockchain, Cartoon Avatars, Curved TVs, Frogans, Hoverboards, iBeacons, Jetpacks, Metaverse, NFTs, Physical Web, Quantum Computing, Quibi, Small and Safe Nuclear Reactors, Smart Glasses, Stadia, WiMAX. I’ve never heard half of the things and the other half is mostly consumer electronics or specific product names. The closest example here is Quantum Computing, which is also a serious technology in development. I think for the OP these are all tech buzzwords that he invests in without understanding what they really are. That’s why he thinks all these unrelated things are the same.
•
I'd say AR & VR were hyped to be as big as AI is now, but just haven't fully delivered on the promise yet. 3D printing was similarly hyped for a time. Same with blockchain. Nuclear power in the 50s was hyped to be the future of energy. The point is to take the hype with a grain of salt and knowledge that not all hyped technologies transformed the world as promised. Maybe AI is like the internet or electricity. But maybe the claims about AGI/ASI and full automation are just hype.
The hype around AI is admittedly annoying - especially from the Wall St crowd who don't know how to pronounce 'Nvidia' correctly, and who haven't managed to internalize the fact that the chatbots they use hallucinate. It really is 'different' , though, in the same way the Internet was. It took about 20 years (ie: since The World ISP) for the Internet to work its way into every facet of life. And the dot com bubble popped half-way through that period of time. AI might 'underwhelm' for another five or ten years. And then it won't. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.
•
I think a good analogy will be the way word processors changed printing. Suddenly anyone with access to a computer had the ability to do professional level editing and layout. Most of them didn’t have the taste or skills to use the tools to the fullest, but it still opened up a ton of possibilities that weren’t available before because it was never practical to hire an actual professional to do a poster for a dinky church bake sale before. But now, church bake sales can have pretty slick looking posters (and websites) depending on whether any of the volunteers cares enough to get. The stuff LLMs will democratize will be a lot more impactful than nice posters for car wash fundraisers though. So in that sense it will be different, but I don’t think it will crack the market for proficient experts in the field in the same way photoshop didn’t destroy graphic design and CAD didn’t destroy drafting. It may get rid of the market for a lot of the second-tier bootcamp grad talent though, so I wouldn’t be getting into that right now if I could help it.
That sounds like an interesting article. You should write it.
•
Or have an LLM write it and then we can judge whether the OP is wrong about whether "this time is different".
 Top