A Readable Techcrunch Feed
readable_techcrunch.mvlab.workers.dev
readable_techcrunch.mvlab.workers.dev
After that I want to hear when OP learns about copyright law. You can't just republish another site's work (especially one that has lots of lawyers) as your own.
They deserve credit for still delivering full articles via RSS, after all those years and changing owners.
That's why I decided to create "A Readable TechCrunch Feed," a simplified version of TechCrunch that focuses on delivering the most important news and updates in a clean and easy-to-read format. As I developed the tool, I found myself constantly frustrated with the bloated and cluttered nature of the original TechCrunch site, and I knew that others in the tech community would benefit from a streamlined version that focused solely on the content.
Overall, I created this tool out of a desire to improve the user experience for others who share my frustration with the overloaded UI of TechCrunch. By simplifying the site and making it easier to navigate, I hope to help others stay up-to-date on the latest tech news and trends without feeling overwhelmed or bogged down by excessive information.
This kind of post instantly repels any desire to seriously interact with you in any meaningful way (at least in me). If English is not your first language, I'd simply say so and then run your own text through deepl.com or something if you think you have to. If your grammar is lacking, use whatever tool for that on your own writing.
Throwing up generic drivel with triple repetition of key facts that sounds like a madlib question straight out of an online marketing crash course is disrespectful to the reader and detrimental to your credibility.
I'm speaking only for myself, of course, and others may disagree. Sorry if this is off-topic.
In this case, there’s 3 paragraphs of text, but there isn’t 3 paragraphs worth of information.
So what likely happened is that the OP provided limited context to the AI and asked it to write a 3-paragraph post based on it which it happily obliged to.
It feels like GPT-3.5. I think GPT-4 generally does a better job at these types of texts.
If it conveys the message the OP is trying to communicate in a readable way, that's all that matters.
I think the reason the person above me pointed out it seemed like ChatGPT (as did I), is to inform the OP that it's quite transparent and they shouldn't just take whatever ChatGPT spits out.
Of course it's possible that we're wrong and it was manually written. In that case it's useful to realize we live in a post-ChatGPT world and if something _looks_ AI-generated, that by itself is (unfortunately?) a bad attribute now.
So, I stopped. I will still take inspiration but it feels really fake. Co-incidentally, after looking at most MidJourney pictures, I'm thinking of getting back to my hobby of photography.
> There's a complete lack of slang
You're like a modern day Blade Runner,
"Holden : The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon : [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?"
> As I developed the tool, I found myself constantly frustrated with the bloated and cluttered nature of the original TechCrunch site, and I knew that others in the tech community would benefit from a streamlined version that focused solely on the content.
ChatGPT responses tend to have this "loop back" where they refer back to the original point (Techcrunch is bloated) multiple times. If he just mentioned he was overwhelmed by the UI, why would he mention it _again_ when talking about developing the app?
This is why I read sites like The Economist (finite number of articles, released weekly) and RSS feeds. So tired of the attention economy.
When I think about such things at all, my train of thought tends towards pursuing only two ideas:
1. That advertising in general is either the worst outcome in some prisoners' dilemma game theory game, in that it never seems to inform potential customers and business spend inordinately trying to outspend everyone else.
2. That advertising may not actually meet the criteria to be considered speech/expression either in general, or when performed by corporations instead of individuals.
I think this is pointing out that the content theft has a harm here. Harming other people is the typical reason we are meant to not steal things. You aren't "obligated" to care about supporting their business model, but the comparison clarifies that it's in the same way that you're not "obligated" to care about the impact of shoplifting.
If that website allows him to download the pages without a 401 or a 403, then how is it any of their business how be prefers to consume that content?
No theft has occurred. Not even in the half-assed "copyright infringement is theft" meaning that some slack-jawed quarterwits have started to use the last decade or two.
It is not harming you to decline to buy something from you, not even if you really really want me to buy it from you, or even if you need me to do that. But if that is true, then it must be especially so that I am not harming you when I turn down your Amway or timeshare sales pitch.
The only moral obligation, the only actual contract that is relevant here is the peering arrangement. Don't put things on the public www unless you're willing to serve them up to everyone. Definitely don't serve them up and then whine that they weren't allow to make the http request.
No shoplifting occurred. Just better software.
* downloading and transforming a document for one's own consumption (as with e.g. ad blockers)
and
* rehosting it with no permission from the writer?
The absence of 401s and 403s indicates tacit permission to me.
It seems to be a primitive perspective, as if I had transported some 7th century scribe through time to the present day. That man, were he here, could not help but imagine that words had been copied from one codex to another, as if by quill pen. No?
All I see is a different client.
I feel it makes me more mindful while scrolling.
Is there a link to the code?
This tech has been around forever but has fallen out of favor, yet still supported by every major site.
Just like how kids now are realizing the fun of film cameras and instant Polaroids as an alternative to digital photography, I keep hoping that a similar renaissance for RSS (or an alternative feed format) comes into vogue again. It really was a superior internet.
The benefit of feed readers is that you are just aggregating original content that is still owned by the original owners. In OP's scenario they are violating copyright law with their site by using ChatGPT to read TechCrunch and regurgitate it onto their own site. This is textbook copyright fraud, and for those shouting "fair use", this wouldn't qualify because it is designed as a replacement to the original. After reading OP's site, I have no need for going to Techcrunch, which makes it no longer fair use. If OP was quoting (with citations) and commentating on techcrunch's article then that would be fair use.