akersten

I think this proposal does an extremely poor job conveying the problem rhythmic sizing solves and why the solution is better than the "before" screenshot. I really don't understand it. I don't understand how I would configure the spacing beyond "CSS will keep the vertical rhythm across multiple columns" which seems extremely opaque and niche and I'd rather have implementers focus on one of the dozens of other things that CSS is objectively lacking and that people have asked for. But maybe I'm culturally biased and the 2nd screenshot is actually incredibly beautiful compared to the first one to someone more in tune than I.

And if I have to configure the spacing manually anyway, why wouldn't I just put `em`-based margins on my blockquotes or whatever.

> awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem.

The legacy consolidated news organizations getting a sweet free new revenue stream are glad that they've been able to convince so many people that big tech linking to them is actually a "stranglehold" and a problem!

i'm confused, why would you go out of your way to add this tracking info to external links voluntarily? it doesn't benefit you, it just helps other websites segment their traffic?

The other side of the view is "information is real and I don't like some of it ("it's harmful/addictive/blasphemous") so it must be controlled and regulated."

I don't think it's an odd thing to be opposed to that line of thinking.

How does this specific horrible take rank so highly on HN whenever something adjacent to big tech gets posted. "impartial common carrier" is not even an extent legal concept.

It's been argued to death already, I just have to express shock that I'm still seeing this non-starter constantly here.

People discovering "just how the web works" have spawned myriad complaints, misguided laws, and general anger and confusion. I wish there was a test people had to take before they go online or something. Otherwise they'll still be mad that Chrome Incognito didn't prevent ads.google.com from registering them as a pageview statistic.

Hmm, that QR code workflow doesn't look very accessible. Can we preemptively ADA this thing out of existence somehow?

> How do you describe in a legal way the difference between a useful feature people want and an addictive feature they don’t want?

For laws like this it always boils down to "I'll know it when I see it" which is such a shockingly poor way to write legislation that I'm flabbergasted it doesn't immediately fail any amount of rudimentary scrutiny. Not to mention the latitude it grants for selective enforcement. It's basically Washington asking (through the Economist) for a leash on platforms that host their critics that they can yank at any time the population gets too rowdy, with the convenient justification that the algorithm is too good and our attention spans are in danger or whatever.

Agreed on all fronts, I should have been more precise that this particular vector was mitigated

2024 which is ancient history. This is not true anymore, the models now are trained to prevent abliteration by spreading out the refusal encoding

See https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19056

Am I getting old or can you guys actually read this site? The text is tiny and gray...

Okay and Chrome provide a service displaying the illegal content to the user. What now?

The stakes just aren't high enough for us to implement any of this crap for the Internet in the first place. Let alone an entire government-administered hardware supply chain.

Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?

> Surely the precedent would have to be that a model trained on GPL code has itself been infected by GPL, and therefore must have all source/weights released

I don't see how this follows, unless we also agree that humans who have ever read any GPL code are themselves permanently tainted and therefore cannot produce anything that isn't influenced even slightly by said code.

Is it just because we think the robot does a better job at learning than we do? It's an impossible line to draw, I agree, but I don't agree that the answer is "well then everything must be considered tainted," I say the answer is "ignore a vestigial concern of a bygone era."

will using claude via opencode get me banned this week or is that not until next week?

> I do not trust them, so I

Why does this sentence end in anything other than "immediately transferred them to another registrar"?

GitHub issues (well, PR comments specifically) is possibly the clearest example of developers not knowing how their users use the product. There are only 3 important user stories that matter for this workflow and none of them are done well:

- I want to review surrounding code and get context for a line level change. Can't do it without clicking multiple expanders and even that has a limit of 2 or 3. I also can't comment on surrounding unchanged code which is sometimes extremely relevant, like "copy this pattern"

- I want to see all the unaddressed issues. Ones that are not marked as resolved and not replied to, however you slice it, the issue filters simply don't work

- I don't want the PR author to be able to resolve issues without me getting indicated to verify them. The workaround is them commenting "fixed" on every issue. Make the button say "mark as resolved" and "verify resolved"

- Bonus: if you've got more than 40 comments on a PR, good luck finding some random subset of them. They're just unavailable and the UI unapologetically says "eh can't do it". Yeah small PRs but it happens.

Popup or inline i don't really care, the baseline workflow is completely uninformed.

I'd go long Google too if using Gemini CLI felt anything close to the experience I get with Codex or Claude. They might have great hardware but it's worthless if their flagship coding agent gets stuck in loops trying to find the end of turn token.

kind of sad that the CSS specification wound up with this clunky `light-dark(white,black)` thing instead of literally anything more extensible like, `themed(dark(black), light(white), retro(purple))`.

Then you'd be able to have a cool theme dropdown like sites used to have, fully CSS-driven with essentially no JS required, in a compatible and modern way.

how your users' browsers choose to render `about:blank` while waiting on your page to be delivered is outside of both your control and concern

on Gnome i've got system-wide dark mode turned on and idk, my Firefox is dark gray until it gets any content. so users have the power and should exercise it to tailor their experience as they wish

> 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 guess to me, I'm looking at it from the perspective of diffing the repo between the squashed commit on main and the tip of the incoming PR. If there are merge conflicts during the rebase in files that don't appear in that diff, I consider that a hallucination, because those changes must already in the target branch and no matter what happened to those files along the way to get there, it will always be a waste of my time to see them during an interactive rebase.

I don't think we need to store any additional metadata to make the rebase just slightly more smarter and able to skip over the "obvious" commits in this way, but I'm also just a code monkey, so I'm sure there are Reasons.

> Conflicts spawn most likely because PR A was squashed, and once you squash Git doesn't know that PR B's ancestors commits are the same thing as the squashed commit on main.

Yeah, and I kind of see how git gets confused because the squashed commits essentially disappear. But I don't know why the rebase can't be smart when it sees that file content between the eventual destination commit (the squash) is the same as the tip of the branch (instead of rebasing one commit at a time).

I've no issue with the logic of needing to update feature branches before merging, that's pretty bread and butter. The specific issue with this workflow is that the "update branch" button for PR B is grayed out because there are these hallucinated conflicts due to the new squash commit.

The update branch button works normally when I don't stack the PRs, so I don't know. It just feels like a half baked feature that GitHub automatically changes the PR target branch in this scenario but doesn't automatically do whatever it takes for a 'git merge origin/main' to work.

Does it fix the current UX issue with Squash & Merge?

Right now I manually do "stacked PRs" like this:

main <- PR A <- PR B (PR B's merge target branch is PR A) <- PR C, etc.

If PR B merges first, PR A can merge to main no problems. If PR A merges to main first, fixing PR B is a nightmare. The GitHub UI automatically changes the "target" branch of the PR to main, but instantly conflicts spawn from nowhere. Try to rebase it and you're going to be manually looking at every non-conflicting change that ever happened on that branch, for no apparent reason (yes, the reason is that PR A merging to main created a new merge commit at the head of main, and git just can't handle that or whatever).

So I don't really need a new UI for this, I need the tool to Just Work in a way that makes sense to anyone who wasn't Linus in 1998 when the gospel of rebase was delivered from On High to us unwashed Gentry through his fingertips..

It seems to parse just fine? They create some unknown mixture of methanol/ethanol (who knows what the ratio is, who cares, like you said, depends what you're making it from) and then raise it past the boiling point of methanol, throwing away everything that comes over while still under the boiling point of ethanol. It sounds like basic distillation to me.

> This is actually a myth. I’ll have to see if I can find the papers I read but mass spectrometry has shown that methanol comes out throughout the entire process. The idea that things come out at their boiling temperature is a drastic oversimplification.

Please do find those papers! They may be describing a radical new chemistry that I'm not familiar with.

To be clear - methanol boils at 64C and ethanol boils at 78C. Are you suggesting that in standard distillation, there is still some non-trace methanol coming over at 78C? If I personally observed that in a laboratory setting, I'd quickly assume measurement error or external contamination.

Fundamentally it's a fuzzy signal and people shouldn't rely on it. The general public does not understand Boolean logic (oh, so the SynthID is not there, therefore this image is real). The sooner AI watermarking faces its deserved farcical demise the better.

Also something about how AI is not special and we haven't added or needed invisible watermarks for other ways media can be manipulated deceptively since time immemorial, but that's less of a practical argument and more of a philosophical one.

It would be a better analogy if tobacco companies sold ad space on their packs and chose not to do business with a private for-profit anti-smoking solicitation group.