bccdee

> such an uncomfortable idea violates any principles of evolution.

Evolution isn't a normative thing. It's perfectly possible for us to evolve into something that morally shouldn't exist, especially in an artificial environment.

"Intersectionality at an individual level" is poison for a social movement. If everyone lends their support only to movements that benefit them personally, that creates a fragmented ecosystem of niche groups that accomplish nothing. Strength lies in solidarity—in big-tent alliances of disparate groups.

The drawback with a big tent is that small subgroups inside that tent may have their concerns ignored. For instance, black women in early feminist movements were treated poorly, but what were they going to do? Start a schism? That'd be a setback for everyone.

Intersectionality is a second-order tool that protects the interests of smaller sub-groups within a big tent. You're wrong to assume that everyone outside the intersection is "actively repelled." When an environmentalist group says they're anticolonial, feminist, BLM, etc., environmentalists are typically fine with it. Sure, it does turn some people off, but that's a feature, not bug. If your group gets co-opted by people who reject some of these values, it makes it difficult to work together with groups that do focus on issues affecting indigenous people, women, etc.

Conservatives tend to gloss over what it is exactly that they want to conserve. The environment? No. Norms? Sometimes, but not always. Before the 19th century, abortion was relatively uncontroversial; anti-abortion rhetoric was a "conservative innovation."

What they always defend is social hierarchies. Anti-abortion rhetoric may break from the status quo, but it does so in defence of preserving women's role in society as obligate mothers. Starting wars in the Middle East isn't staid or responsible, but the performance of these wars situates America at the top of a symbolic hierarchy of global power.

If you dig into the fathers of modern conservative thought (people like Edmund Burke), one thing they were very concerned about was the preservation of aristocratic hierarchy beyond the end of monarchism. How can a liberal society maintain a class distinction between the rulers and the ruled? These are the intellectual roots of meritocracy: Let the free market pick winners without any interference by egalitarian meddlers, and the upper class will naturally select itself.

From this standpoint, the conservative disinterest in sustainability becomes obvious. The machines that are destroying the environment are owned by wealthy people whose fortunes may be destabilized by switching to a newer, more sustainable technologies. The conservative movement exists to protect the social status of the wealthy; therefore, concern for the environment is a liability.

> There are huge environmental and societal issues in today's computing, and permacomputing specifically wants to challenge them in the same way as permaculture has challenged industrial agriculture.

Permacomputing seems like a body of values and practices that is extremely grounded in a particular political perspective.

It's odd to regard permaculture, degrowth, anarchism, decoloniality, intersectional feminism, etc. as completely orthogonal. They're all part of a shared tradition of thought—not an "omnicause," but an ecosystem. You won't find a lot of people who love intersectional feminism but hate decoloniality. Appropriately enough, plucking a single plant from the earth and then dismissing the rest of the garden is exactly the type of blinkered thinking which permaculture discourages.

I'm honestly very impressed. You read these passages multiple times across composing two HN replies and did not, at any point, realize that curiosity is not an inherently positive emotion.

Curiosity is a "desire to know." We badly want to know about things that threaten us. People in 2020 were extremely curious about COVID-19, but that doesn't mean they liked it.

You might say, "well it's open for interpretation. It could be positive curiosity." But why stop there? Interpret: Anxiety is more common than anger, and anger is more common than excitement. Given a sample member who is anxious, angry, not excited, and not hopeful, do you think their curiosity is positively or negatively inflected?

Additionally, I don't know where Claude got the idea that "daily users remain substantially more hopeful and excited than the aggregate figures suggest." That's not in the data set, and a different data set will need to be interpreted separately.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but you've completely failed to engage critically with either the article or with Claude. Claude misread the article and then affirmed its own misreading, and you took that all at face value.

And then how do you uncover bias in your chatbot? Do you ask it to analyze its own analysis? For that matter, what about the bias in your prompt, which LLMs tend to accept uncritically? Do your own preconceived opinions bias you against the argument made in the article? Are you using a chatbot to think critically about the article, or to avoid thinking critically about your own beliefs?

> At the same time, 79 percent of those surveyed by Gallup “expressed concern that AI makes people lazier,” and 65 percent said that using chatbots “promotes instant gratification, not real understanding” and prevents people from engaging with ideas in a critical or meaningful way.

Perhaps you should take a cue from these surveyees and do your own thinking.

I think there's a big difference between "your drawing skills will atrophy if you use CAD to draw for you" and "your brain will atrophy if you ask an LLM to think for you." Personally I don't judge people for being unable to draw, but I do judge them for being unable to think for themselves.

Simpler tools are a forcing function for simplicity. If you don't have code search, you'll need to write code that is legible without searching. If you don't have auto-refactoring utils, you'll have to be stricter about information-hiding. And if you don't have AI, you might hesitate to commit to the first thing you think of. You might go back to the drawing board in search of a deeper, simpler abstraction and end up reducing the size of your codebase instead of increasing it.

Conveniences sometimes make things more complicated in the long run, and I worry that code agents (the ultimate convenience) will lead to a sort of ultimate carelessness that makes our jobs harder.

Writ very small, though. You can easily fit a dozen bikes into the space of one parking spot, if not more (double-decker racks exist!), and it is a lot easier to contrive a spot for your bike in the absence of bike racks than it is to park a car when there's no parking.

Heck—if you have a car & your building doesn't have parking, you're basically screwed. If you have a bike & it doesn't have a bike rack, you can just carry it up & put it on your balcony. At that point, I don't think you can really compare the two.

That's a common narrative in popular culture (especially since the publication of Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation), but it doesn't really bear out in data. Smartphones don't really have a discernible impact on mental health at a population level.

The idea is that teen mental health got dramatically worse in the early 2010s at the same time as social media began to become ubiquitous, but this is likely a coincidence. The underlying metrics we're tracking here are self-harm hospitalizations, and concerns about teen self-harm were already growing in the early 2000s. This leads to a bunch of new guidance getting published which increases teen mental health screening, tracks mental health status as a cause of injuries, and forces insurance companies to cover associated costs.

It's one of those situations where our stats about a problem increased as we became better at tracking it. Teen suicidality is actually WAY down over the past ~30 years.

Qualitative data is, of course, much harder to work with than hospitalization numbers, but the data we do have suggests a weak correlation, if any, between phone use and poor mental health— see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30944443/, which suggests phones can explain at most 0.4% of variance in well-being among teens. [1]

It feels like common sense that social media is bad for you, and sure, there's plenty of work to be done in understanding how and why social media can cause harm. But the idea that there's some big crisis just doesn't pan out.

Info drawn from https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-anxious-generation...

[1]: In fairness, Haidt published a response to this article featuring a new, bespoke set of controls for the data. His analysis suggests that the impact of social media use on mental health is nearly twice as large as that of being sexually assaulted and four times larger than hard drug use (which itself has a slightly larger effect size than wearing glasses). Personally, I don't find these conclusions plausible at all. Maybe Haidt's been p-hacking, or maybe the data set is worthless. I couldn't say. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169182...

Everyone wants a scheme for organizing notes, and let me say: Just do it chronologically. It's fine. Taking notes is more important than reviewing them, and the older a note is, the less likely you are to need it.

You can add a layer of structure by periodically reviewing recent entries & updating an index, but I've never felt the need to.

I actually might want to subscribe to your newsletter, provided I read & enjoy your article. So why does the pop-up always interrupt me before the page has even finished loading?

If you inset an unobtrusive newsletter button 60% of the way through the article, perhaps I'll actually click it (or, more realistically, follow your RSS feed).

It feels like the type of infrastructure envy that leads engineers to spin up a k8s cluster to serve a static website. If you're a publishing academic who needs to ingest a lot of material across a variety of subject areas with an eye to producing more, you will need to take a lot of research notes and you will inevitably organize them one way or another. If you are a working software developer, your needs are very different. I think most of the HN-blog-ecosystem-adjacent zettelkastens exist mostly for the fun of playing with information.

"Can't" means it would be bad for business. I think consumers are a lot less turned off by the idea of a OneDrive subscription than a Windows subscription. Better to stitch little services like OneDrive and Copilot into every part of the system and cajole people into paying for those instead.

I'm not taking a "zero technical debt" stance. Every successful startup eventually ends up treating their 1.0 codebase as a legacy burden. That's the cost of doing business, but it is a real cost. If Anthropic could have kept their code quality high with a few clever tricks and a few extra tokens, surely they would have.

So I take this whole episode as confirmation that code which is subject to high-velocity low-supervision work by agents decays quickly even under ideal circumstances.

It bothered me in theory, but when I started writing lua it quickly became clear that it really doesn't matter. It's just another quirk, like significant whitespace: I don't prefer it, but it's so far down my list of language priorities that it basically doesn't matter.

I wouldn't expect so. These machines have been trained on natural language, after all. They see the world through an anthropomorphic lens. IME & from what I've heard, they struggle with inexpressive code in much the same way humans do.

One truism about coding agents is that they struggle to work with bad code. Code quality matters as much as always, the experts say, and AI agents (left unfettered) produce bad code at an unprecedented rate. That's why good practices matter so much! If you use specs and test it like so and blah blah blah, that makes it all sustainable. And if anyone knows how to do it right, presumably it's Anthropic.

This codebase has existed for maybe 18 months, written by THE experts on agentic coding. If it is already unintelligible, that bodes poorly for how much it is possible to "accelerate" coding without taking on substantial technical debt.

That's actually a good point, haha. The worst-case scenario of computers being thin clients for other people's servers dissolves when you realize that chromium/electron IS, nominally, a thin client for HTTP servers, and it'll gladly eat up as much memory as you throw at it. In the long term, modulo the current RAM shortage, it turns out it's cheaper to ship beefy hardware than it is to ship lean software.

I think "design by committee" is a better target for criticism than collaboration in general.

If you get a bunch of people in a room and ask them for a design, one person is going to write the design while everyone else gets in the way. That's simply the nature of groups. The one person who writes it isn't even necessarily the best designer—they're just the one most willing to grab the whiteboard marker.

Conversely, if you ask one person to produce a preliminary design, they can leave, gather requirements, do research, produce a plan, and then convene everyone in a room to review it. Now all the abstract hypotheticals have been put to bed, the nebulous directionlessness has been replaced with a proposal, and the group can actually provide useful feedback and have a discussion that will inform the next draft of the design. And once the design is finished, everyone can easily work together to implement it as written. Collaboration is great, after someone has proposed a design.

That's part of what I like about the idea of Amazon's "culture of writing," though I've never worked in an environment like that in practice. Every idea needs to be preprocessed into an actionable memo before anyone tries to have a meeting about it.

"It's UNFAIR!" is the anthem of whiny children. If these people would benefit from access to Youtube, and we can provide it to them trivially, then by all means, let them have it. If it upsets you when people are given things for free, that's really a "you problem."

Yeah well Google owns my Gmail address, but they'd sure ruin my life if they gave it to someone else. It's not acceptable.

Squatting is something you do to someone else's property. It implies that there is someone else out there with a more legitimate claim to the @hac handle, which there isn't. It's not as if we're talking about @google or something.

If I stole your house and sold it because I didn't think you were using it properly, that would clearly be illegitimate. I don't see why the rules change when we talk about someone's twitter handle. Nobody needs @hac. X merely wants it and has the power to take it.

The onset of the pandemic in 2020 left me more isolated than I'd even been before in my life. I was single, I was working remotely, and the lock-downs finally killed what was left of my preexisting friend group. I have a naturally solitary disposition, but even for me, it was hard.

Here are some coping strategies you can apply right away:

→ Listen to podcasts, especially podcasts in a chatty & informal style. It really helps to just hear people talking. If you're looking for recommendations, I'm very fond of If Books Could Kill.

→ A lot of podcasts have Discord servers associated with them, where fans of the show congregate & talk. Sometimes you have to pay a couple bucks on Patreon to get access. These can be good places to go for a very easy, low-effort social space. You can keep it open on another monitor & let it serve as background chatter that you can dip into at any time.

→ Do stuff. Go to museums, go to movies, go to dinner. Some people have hangups about (e.g.) eating at restaurants alone, but you must overcome this psychological hurdle immediately. You will feel much more alive if you go outside.

→ Read a book. If it doesn't grab you, then set it down and start another. Beauty is good for the soul, and the wonderful thing about a paperback novel is that, unlike TV and movies, you cannot pull out your phone and multitask. With practice, you can stay immersed in a text for longer & longer periods of time. Eventually, a good novel will be able to eat up your whole weekend and leave you feeling great afterwards.

→ Start a journal. Without an intimate partner to talk to, it can feel like your head is heavy with half-formed thoughts that you just can't get rid of. Getting them down on paper is almost as good as voicing them to another person. The podcasts are nice, but spending all your time listening to podcasts can gradually teach you to be uncomfortable when left with your own thoughts. Keeping a journal helps you stay on good terms with yourself. I can't recommend it enough.

Now I'll get into some longer-term lifestyle changes. These can take a while to come to fruition and may require leaving your comfort zone, but they're worthwhile.

→ For me, there is nothing better for my mental health than a 90-minute park run on a breezy day in late spring. Even a 30-minute stint on a treadmill in the dead of winter will clear my mind. I don't know what your relationship to exercise is, so I can't really call this a quick fix, but think about ways to incorporate exercise into your routine in ways that you'll enjoy. Personally, I suggest running.

→ There's a broad stratum of fun social events designed for meeting people and developing shared hobbies. Pottery classes, choir programs, ultimate frisbee. You pay a couple hundred bucks to sign up, then you go to the event on Thursday nights and maybe get drinks with some of the other members afterwards. You won't be best friends right away, and you'll probably never get that close with most of them, but having a loose community like this is nice, and if you stay in contact with people after the course ends, you may take away some lasting friendships.

→ Undertake a creative project. I wrote a novel during the pandemic. It sucked, but I put a lot of time and love into it and I really felt like I did something. (The trouble with writing a novel, of course, is that nobody will want to read it. If you're smarter than me, you'll pick up something like painting, which produces stuff you can hang up, show off, and give away. Pottery and music I mentioned earlier, but I'll mention them here again.) Creativity is extremely fulfilling. It takes time to feel like you're producing anything valuable, but when you do, it'll mean a lot.

> You've got to die of something; so you might as well die for something

It's very easy to die "for something" when you're already dying. The question is how much of your life you're willing to give up for something by dying right now.

People talk about "dying for your country" as if it's all one and the same, but some people die for the people in their country and some people merely die for the interests of their state.

Sounds like you're looking for the scratch file extension [1]

[1]: https://github.com/orbitalquark/textadept-scratch

I'm reminded of a talk I enjoyed about "extreme rewriting" [1] — how rewriting the same code many times (in certain contexts) can help uncover powerful underlying abstractions.

It makes intuitive sense to me that this would be true in complex domains (e.g. legacy code) where you really need to find the right solution, even if it takes a bit longer. Our first ideas are rarely our best ideas, and it's easy to get too attached to your first solution and try to tweak it into shape when it would be better just to start fresh.

[1]: https://www.hytradboi.com/2025/03580e19-4646-4fba-91c3-17eab...

Syncthing has worked flawlessly for me.

Slop. The illustrations are bad, the article is way too long, and none of it has a clear point.

So elderly that they can't walk to the bus? I suspect your data mean retirement age, i.e. 60-65+. They don't all need paratransit.