bbg2401

> The UK government has officially scrapped the idea of restricting virtual private networks (VPNs) to enforce its impending social media bans, delivering a massive victory for digital privacy advocates.

> Speaking on BBC Breakfast today, the government confirmed a major U-turn on the subject, with Online Safety Minister Kanishka Narayan stating: "We decided not to limit VPNs."

> This was further cemented in a written parliamentary statement by Technology Secretary Liz Kendall, who clarified that the government will not age-gate or ban the best VPN software because "VPNs have legitimate privacy and security uses."

https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/we-decide...

The crux is:

> What is the governance structure for Bun by the way? Couldn't find any documents/explanations about how it's supposed to work. I'm guessing it's essentially just "Anthropic decides what gets done and accepted" today?

And this is a valid question. You are not "defending reality" by refusing to listen to it.

In summary and based solely on my understanding:

- Jared misled people about the intentions of the migration. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it's certainly worthy of criticism.

- Jared has commented before about locking out human contributors from open source projects. Whether he was making a larger point is irrelevant as his comment stands on its own.

- Other Bun contributors, past and future, outside of those employed by Anthropic, did not and likely will not have equal access to the model Jared used for the rewrite.

Jared, working in the public Bun repository, used tooling not available to his community to experiment with a signficant migration. He dismissed all concerns and told people it's just a bit of fun, and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Most of the controversy would have been avoided were the experiment done in private.

None of this is a big scandal but questions about the project are entirely justified.

It feels less sloppy than most obviously AI generated landing pages.

The only sloppy aspects that stand out to me are the needless animations/transitions.

Also observed here: https://elixirforum.com/t/elixir-lang-org-redesign/76041

I’m not sure what interacting with the computer fully means, but I don’t think it’s true about most computer users. They use software which invariably speaks to the user through visual metaphors and conceptual abstractions. Nothing has changed in that regard. This is true even of most programmers using high level languages.

Nothing has changed at the level of computation either, hardware speaks the same vocabulary and of electrical signals as ever.

Could you describe the change you are observing?

Anyone else suspect this is an entirely astroturfed comment section?

> Powered by SlopIt. Instant blogs for AI agents. Slop it and ship it.

The village idiot analogy is misguided and unnecessarily accusatory.

However, I do feel internet communities were better when they were smaller due to being special interest driven and self-policing. People wore different hats according to the community they were engaging with.

> When you import shadcn components you can rebuild them however you want, thats the point.

Why not use BaseUI directly?

You say this as if almost every AI generated landing page posted to HN isn't falling apart at the seams.

Maybe tone down the hatred?

It's unlikely you'll try to debate anything. You're interested in agitation alone.

Seconded on the Alex Edwards adoration. Anyone with the slightest interest in learning Go for web development should pick up both Let's Go and Let's Go Further. They are two of the most approachable, enjoyable and practical introductions to a programming language I've read.

I'd contend that Claude's prose is not boring. It's generally overly grandiose waffle with a cliche or two punctuating every other sentence. It's good for tasteless marketing copy, sure. It's inappropriate in most scenarios.

Why do many AI advocates sound so, so much like the cryptocurrency zealots of the mid-2010's?

Is it something you aim for, or is it just the natural way of communication for people excited by a new technology, patricianly one they feel gives them some kind of insider advantage or hidden knowledge?

Perhaps you could explain why they are the problem.

Are Anthropic and OpenAI the only entities permitted to charge for their work in this brave new world?

Someone should tell the vibe coders because the vast majority posted here seem to include poorly considered subscription plans.

> If a Rust rewrite of any of your software becomes available and you aren't installing it immediately and without reservation

This is silly.

Rust is awesome, and it's hard to argue against in many domains. However, software is more than the language it is written in or the runtime serving it. Is the Rust rewrite fully compatible? Is it supported by a strong community? Is it likely to continue to be supported? Is its release cadence sensible? Is its licence compatible with your intended usage?

There are many questions needing to be answered before making rash decisions based purely on tech.

Jared has behaved appallingly in recent months. Comments about locking out humans from open source code contributions and the gaslighting at the start of the migration are top of mind.

> Check back Friday for the next build — same download page, fresh features, zero cost.

I’m sorry to waste so many comments complaining about how people use AI but the phrasing above sits in uncanny valley for me.

I don’t know if the culture around consumption of vibe coded apps is different and the style used to describe projects is optimal for that audience , or if the projects simply don’t have an audience so the uncanny tone is just not an issue.

> Remember when people would argue about how types weren't worth the effort?

> if nothing else for how it's been able to popularize types.

This is such an odd, javascript dev take.

If you're tired of modern American film tropes, there's a world of cinema to explore and enjoy from other cultures.

Give Telugu, Tamil, Hindi, Korean, British, Japanese, Hongkonger, Chinese, Taiwanese, Thai, etc films are try. If you're like me, you'll be delighted with the change of pace and focus on more human-centered stories and grounded portrayals of characters and relationships.

American cinema feels so uncanny and sterile by comparison.

Other recent vibe-coded projects providing similar interfaces:

- https://github.com/tdeverx/contained-app

- https://github.com/tofa84/berth

> They’ll reach for the tools they always do: brutal suppression of the poor, leveraging of propaganda, and the dangling of carrots to a select few class traitors needed to enforce and maintain the system (middle managers, scabs, and cops).

Even if America was on a path towards communism, you'd be an ignorant fool to suggest the aforementioned ills would cease to exist given they are recurrent throughout communist systems.

Professional diligence, perhaps? A desire to not be blindly led into the kind of narrow, often first-party stack which is so often proposed by Claude Code?

With all due respect, not everyone is afflicted with the lack of care sufficient to allow them to launch vibe coded apps as low quality as https://podnami.com. Considered technology choices are one such aspect of the practice of caring about what you're building.

Will you answer questions yourself, or will you simply pass on what your LLM of choice writes for you?

Edit: On further inspection, the blog design, the blog build, the blog articles and even the anecdotes used in the articles are entirely Claude generated.

Stop being so lazy. Get Claude to do something interesting and use your own intellect to assess and challenge the work in your write up. Or the other way around. Inject some amount of human work, at least. Otherwise, what's the point in sharing?

It's a thing, yes. It's entirely irrelevant to the topic though.

This is a tedious, meandering, almost self-contradictory article.

> To me people calling their code or software “Clean”, “Easy”, or “Simple” has always felt wrong. You aren’t entitled to declare your own creation to have some subjective trait you strived for when writing it.

Follows:

> The more objective you assume you are, the more easily manipulated you can be by subjectivity, be it your own subjectivity or others.

I'm happy to go on record stating the former is more forgivable than a lazy false truism or platitude.

It's both a usability issue and an anti-customer choice.

Most of the other "tools" posted to HN within the past year are near identical to yours because you've not bothered to consider what you're building and why. You've asked an LLM for a weekend project idea and gone with one of the most recurrent suggestions. From that, you've let the LLM generate the same basic web app as every other person who has been equally lazy in approach.

I'm sorry to be harsh but submissions like this are the reason HN is a less interesting showcase for personal projects nowadays.