JeremyNT

Android actually does have a desktop mode when you connect an external display. I'm not sure how much this is standardized / merged into AOSP, but I use it with my stock Pixel 10 Pro.

I would describe the experience as... passable. Historically it was quite glitchy but recent OS updates have improved it. The biggest issues resolve around apps which do not scale their UIs correctly.

Yeah the old name was not good so I get the desire to rebrand, although I'm not sure this is much better.

Why would you build an app at all? Why wouldn't Claude just be the app itself? You ask it to set up your UI in the web app and you just use Claude for your entire workflow.

We're only a few persistent widgets and a better persistent storage story away from this possibility.

Have you considered that perhaps the US is really doing a poor job lately, and so pro-US posts would be less common?

I really recall leading up to and shortly after the election the vibe here was decidedly pro-Trump. The tech right was ascendant, posts glazing Elon and other administration cronies were the rule, and criticisms were flagged/dead almost immediately.

I agree with the GP post that some of Drew's observations seem off today, but I think it's a relatively recent development. It seems to me that only in the past 6 months has a permission structure arisen that criticism of this administration has become accepted here.

This used to be true during the zero interest rate days when you could leapfrog up the chain but I think the times have changed.

By all means keep your eyes open outside of your org, but it's increasingly hard to even get a resume seen by a human on the other side of the hiring process.

If you have a good reputation on your current team, that places you above external candidates as you look to move up in your organization. Don't ignore that.

They really are being built and used commercially. Probably incentives play a part in this, but their numbers are slowly increasing, so it's not totally vaporware (of course we don't need new articles every ~6 month talking about how amazing this technique is) [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship#Modern_vessels

TLDR: awareness of the SV "rationalist" polycule has breached containment and normies are reading about it now. [0]

Maybe a "better" source is the NY Post article [1]. The information itself isn't really news - it's even largely available on wikipedia [2] [3] - but the fact that it's hitting mainstream-adjacent news outlets is novel.

[0] https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mvom4b4dn...

[1] https://nypost.com/2026/09/16/business/ai-doomsayers-wild-li...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aella_(writer)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_community

> Interesting article. My advice is to do it the old fashioned, hard way. There’s no royal road to knowledge, skill, and learning.

I had a colleague tell me "it's not vibe coding when a programmer does it."

I fully believe there's still value in understanding the internals of software and the patterns developers use to structure it, but I do wonder for how much longer any of this knowledge will be more than of academic interest.

> Reading HN, I 100% understood “private” to be marketing copy for “local inference”.

Pretty ironic then that here, Mozilla is specifically labeling their "we send it all to the cloud" service as "private."

> This is an excellent use case for completely local, small model inference, yet for inexplicable reasons Mozilla wants to normalize uploading your entire private browsing history to a cloud.

I certainly agree that this option would be nice to have, but running firefox without an ad blocker on the modern web will ALREADY spin up my fans just rendering all the garbage, and I have a decent laptop.

You can't expect the median Firefox-running device to be able to run a capable enough local model effectively.

Agreed, I think that's the big selling point: a private screen you can take with you.

But the Steam Frame specifically is not well suited for this. Something more minimal like the Big Screen Beyond 2 would be better, and XR-type glasses (like those from Viture) which present as standard monitors would be better still.

My question as well. Why is this happening in ci/ci? Why aren't contributors performing the automated review and correction step locally?

The only answer I can imagine is that it supports reviewing patches from people who aren't using AI or review by humans but parent doesn't mention this.

The race/flight sim market is still going strong, but I guess it's the exception that proves the rule. It's extremely difficult to make a non-vehicle-based game that actually plays well in VR.

Admittedly my VR glasses are older, but for me this is a really terrible experience. If a game lacks native VR support, it's far more comfortable to just use my widescreen monitor in the real world.

> If you think AI will be powerful enough to change the world in huge ways, then it does seem reasonable to assume some level of risk of destroying the world too.

There's an opportunity cost in the doomsday prophesying, though.

The media coverage of "these extremely capable robots might kill us (according to the guys who sell the robots)" comes at the cost of coverage of the real, present issues surrounding the tech oligarchs that we're already facing.

Sure, there are some failure modes that lead to some really bad stuff, but human extinction seems exceedingly unlikely to be one of them, and "10%" is pulled straight out of Dario's derriere.

Far more likely are economic disruptions that impact the tenuous balance between labor and capital and lead to unpredictable societal upheaval.

> I love the "illicit distillation attacks" framing from the incumbents. There's nothing illicit. There's no attack. You just don't like it because it threatens your market position and business model.

I think a lot of this is done using stolen black market API credentials, which is why it might be somewhat accurate to consider it illicit.

Hoka (like many other brands with running lineages) was careful not to devalue its brand.

Nike has some quality products, but they also consistently released garbage products and stamped a swoosh on them.

So there's the squeeze: people who want quality can go to a brand that's actually known for quality and avoid the guessing game, people who want garbage can get cheaper garbage drop shipped from China.

My municipality, and many other governmental entities, post official updates to x.com

I honestly feel like you're making this sound more complicated than it needs to be. I get what I would describe as very good results from GPT 5.6 on my projects.

There are some methodologies that can improve things for me versus just YOLO'ing but even these are of marginal benefit:

* Have good requirements. Experience with a codebase and stakeholders helps a lot here.

* Correctly subdivide the task into chunks that won't blow context. You can write a big task and have an agent plan subtask delegation for you, but it's good to have some intuition of your own.

* Perform an automated code review. This is a no-brainer but it catches stuff.

* Make sure you understand the "big picture" stuff and stop caring about the little details. The agents will write unit tests, so you shouldn't have to care about reading every LOC, you can ask the agent to describe the architecture and flow instead.

Perhaps he's quite nice over zoom, but since very few of us are going to meet him in that context, the rest of us are left to judge him by what he posts. And as they say, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Based on what I've read so far, with his shit-talking the competition, he seems like... a bit of an asshole.

> These tools are bad, objectively! They give inferior user experiences, and waste resources (ever more important now with RAM prices what they are).

They can be "bad" in some dimensions (as you mentioned) while being "good" in others (dev productivity).

These frameworks didn't become popular for no reason. They have value. The parts that are "good" can easily outweigh the parts that are "objectively bad" when they enable a smaller team to get things out the door they would have had trouble shipping otherwise.

> I've been wondering whether AI really is improving rapidly at open problems or we're being fooled.

I think your suspicions are warranted and your explanation seems plausible.

If better training data is the reason here, it would still be a case of the models doing something that is in and of itself super useful! The models really can take that data and distill it into solutions for similar problems faster than humans can. This is great!

But there's so much vested interest in the AI companies to be opaque about all this, to hype up their models and avoid giving credit to people whose data made everything possible, that they would never tell us this fact if it were true.

I feel like so much of the AI hype cycle is like this. The models develop extremely useful capabilities, but it's hard to understand what they really are through the hype. The lies and obfuscation by their owners who have vested interests in capturing the value they provide makes it impossible to take anything they say at face value.

Yes. But although they can't know "why" a specific "wrong" answer was selected, the response is often still informative, and it can highlight real weaknesses in process or code structure that should be addressed anyway.

Exactly. If their productivity fantasies are real, the precarious (and already very anti-worker) balance between capital and labor immediately disintegrates.

Serious solutions to this would look like nationalizing tech companies, mandating shorter work weeks, seizing the assets of the oligarchs and redistributing them.

Not... letting the invisible hand of the market sort it all out.

> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics.

What are those "taboo topics?" Can you state this plainly rather than obliquely?

> I don't think anyone finds this flavor of activity beneficial. What's beneficial is the underlying system that is sufficiently free and flexible that great things (like VMware to begin with) are possible. As much as we don't like "this" we don't want to put any bureaucrats in power to squash creativity and enterprise.

Ultimately, the purpose of a system is what it does.

We've structured our society such that performing this type of activity is extremely lucrative, and financial engineering is by all appearances the endeavor that humans value above all others.

He leveraged his past success as a web developer to get into online culture war punditry. Now he's a prominent race-baiting reactionary.

There's a sort of cult of personality around him at this point. His acolytes follow him for his nativist views, and then adopt his technology unthinkingly.

I don't know why my comment was downvoted above. This isn't a serious distribution and you shouldn't expect it to be. It's a vanity project of a niche alt right tech bro, and this is the level of rigor you should expect.

The whole point of Omarchy is for people who want to use Arch Linux but have it configured the way DHH does.

So I think it's a little different. Anybody using an opinionated respin should understand what they're getting.

The pessimism is justified. This is the way most Americans want our country to be run. It's unambiguous.

Most Americans either actively supported this administration, or didn't mind it enough to even do the minimum (which is to vote against it).

How you'd possibly convince such people to reconsider is beyond me, and an uprising without popular support would go essentially nowhere.

Follow AI people and watch their reposts.

Starter packs can help bootstrap it. Perhaps this? [0]

A lot of the biggest boosters of AI are aligned with the politics of Musk, and so they're just going to stay on X. This means the AI discourse is far less on bsky.

[0] https://blueskystarterpack.com/starter-packs/@nimobeeren.com...