buu700

For me personally, I haven't really found that length per se is what makes something harder to write on mobile vs desktop, but more the level of "complexity". If it's just a matter of banging out a bunch of straightforward linear text, I'll often reach for my phone before my laptop. Mobile swipe typing is actually pretty productive for that sort of thing, in my experience.

Where it starts to become a pain is when the task demands a lot of formatting, symbols/punctuation, uncommon words, non-linear writing/editing, or referencing of outside information. The more I have to multitask, and the less I can just stay in a flow and churn out effectively a stream of consciousness, the more constraining a mobile device is going to feel. But for lots of things it's surprisingly great; sometimes I'll intentionally do the heavy lifting on a longer document from my phone and then handle editing/formatting/proofreading from my laptop.

Anyway, I set up Tailscale and aRDP a few months ago (as well as Termius, but have gravitated more toward aRDP in practice), and it's been a pretty substantial efficiency boost. On one hand, I've sort of experienced the same thing as the parent — not necessarily longer, but more complex prompts often have me putting down the phone and grabbing my laptop. On the other hand, lots of prompts are totally fine from mobile. There are also entire categories of tasks where every few hours I just need to sanity check the current diff, latest commits, and Codex output, then resend some variation of "please continue" from my prompt history and maybe answer some follow-up questions; mobile is perfect for that.

This actually happened to me a couple months ago. Started a Rust rewrite of a project as an experiment, then a few weeks later it was presented to the team and promoted to mainline.

Although in that case the language change was almost incidental — the rewrite was very much not a straight 1:1 port, but more of a substantive architectural overhaul and longstanding tech debt cleanup; Rust was just one of many tools and design decisions that helped get the best possible end result. There were also various reasons it made sense to attempt a rewrite within that particular window of time.

The upshot is we've ended up with a substantially stronger QA posture, a much higher-quality and more maintainable codebase, and an extremely positive audit report by a group that was brought in to review the project. There were some early kinks to work out, but the longer we've lived in this version of code the more it's proven itself to be a stronger foundation than its predecessor.

Of course, Bun is its own thing and all circumstances are unique. I have no idea how that rewrite was approached, whether it was the right decision, or how it will ultimately prove itself. Just saying the shift from "experiment" to "official new direction" is normal and credible, and that I'd give it some time to see how it handles contact with reality before passing judgement. If it's truly a disaster, nothing's stopping them from reversing course and backporting any new changes to the old Zig codebase.

Ah, no, I'm based in the US so I had the opposite problem. An Asket shirt I paid $50 for in 2022 (Swedish company with Portuguese manufacturing) is now $95, but Buck Mason makes a comparable option in Pennsylvania that matches the old Asket price.

(On further investigation, Asket actually just switched from Egyptian ELS to Californian Supima cotton and raised pricing in general. There is some US-specific markup, but most of the price change is not tariff pass-through as I'd assumed.)

For the T-shirt I used both Grok and Gemini Deep Research. I basically just told them I was looking for an alternative to the Asket Lightweight T-Shirt that was more in line with its 2022 pricing of $50 (already on the high end of what I was willing to pay). They both called out that the defining features were Supima cotton and 120gsm density, and each independently recommended the Buck Mason Classic Pima Tee (with the only notable differences on paper being a slightly thicker 140gsm and anecdotal reports of inconsistent sizing). They each gave a few backup recs, but those were mostly not available or less aligned with requirements, so I just went for the BM and it met expectations.

For the shorts I used only Grok. Explained that I was looking for a similar fit and poly/elastane blend to an old Under Armour pair. Initially it incorrectly claimed that the same shorts were still for sale. Went back and forth with it surfacing a few options that weren't relevant and hallucinating specific claimed comparisons to the original pair in reviews that didn't actually exist. Ultimately it landed on another UA pair that was identical on paper other than a much larger stylized logo, and a cheaper one from a brand interestingly called "DEVOPS". Went with the latter and it turned out to be pretty much the same as the old pair, or at least as close as it seems I'm likely to find without a giant ad plastered on the side.

I recently used AI to shop for clothes. A T-shirt I liked and wanted more of had doubled in price due to tariffs, while some shorts that needed replacement had been discontinued. AI helped identify alternatives with comparable fit and fabric that were respectively domestic and available, which would have been a much bigger hassle pre-AI.

It's a matter of resources, not corporate status per se. For better or for worse, the current status quo largely democratizes content promotion. You and I can post these two comments here and put our ideas and names in front of a bunch of strangers for $0.

In a world where the risk-adjusted cost of allowing third-party comments on your platform shoots up, someone has to pay that cost. A personal blog hosted on your server might struggle to find any significant reach without a real advertising budget, because distributing speech/content that promotes your platform would no longer be ~free.

I don't necessarily believe that the major social media platforms would fully evaporate, but I'd expect some or all of these changes across the ecosystem:

* Massively scaled up LLM-based moderation/censorship.

* Replacement of direct user content posting with an LLM-based interface (to chat with an LLM about what you want it to write on your behalf).

* Payment-gated public posting, e.g. monthly or per-post fees to cover liability/insurance and/or LLM inference costs. Possibly higher fees for direct authorship vs LLM pair posting.

* Massive rise in adoption of decentralized architectures, either via current mainstream platforms if legally tolerated or via anonymous dark web platforms otherwise. Maybe Tor becomes as normalized as VPNs, or maybe the Western legal environment shifts hard against general-purpose computing.

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, but I think it's taking a lot of the current status quo for granted. What you guys are proposing isn't necessarily a targeted change that would simply make bad guys stop doing bad things. It's more likely a massive structural change that would dramatically alter the social and economic fabric of the internet as we know it, and not in a way that most of us would like.

+1 for US Mobile. Verizon was also good, but a few months ago my cofounder and I discovered we were absurdly overpaying for our decade-old small business plan and found that US Mobile offered a better end product for a fraction of the price.

Currently running my Pixel on Warp (Verizon) with zero practical difference, and starting Monday I'll also have a backup iPhone with a small $8/mo Darkstar line. The money I've saved since switching more or less paid for the iPhone, and I'll be getting 2x reliability for way less ongoing cost. The better app/website/support and extra features are just a bonus.

Well that's also true, but "really nice features" still means the opposite of "terrible anti-features". All else being equal, I don't not want those things.

The more important part is first-class Linux support. From my perspective, macOS is basically discount Linux; it's tolerable, but only if the gulf between a MacBook and the next best hardware is wide enough to justify it.

Assuming the basics hold up well, upgradability and repairability likely push Framework Pro over the edge for me from merely "close enough" to "materially superior" on balance. I'd still be interested if it didn't have those features, but I'd also look more closely at alternatives and be less willing to pay a premium over the cost of an equivalently-specced MBP.

I'm not sure I understand your pitch. Most of those are features, not bugs. Why would I give up all of that plus first-class Linux support just to save checks notes 0.35mm in thickness?

It's not just a valid comparison; for some of us, it's the only comparison that matters. Upgradability and repairability are really nice features, but the machine still needs to otherwise be an upgrade over the one it's replacing.

If the Framework Pro holds up in reviews and works as well with Linux as claimed, it'll probably replace my M2 Air as a daily driver. If they add Dvorak as an option so I don't have to rearrange the keys myself, that will make the choice a slam dunk.

I've always liked Postel's law as a general philosophy toward life. But yeah, it's definitely become a little dated in the software world, if it was ever a good idea at all.

Manhattan is one thing, but I would never let my kids go to the 70s unsupervised.

I don't know about jujutsu, but I've actually found that Nix removes a lot of complexity. It's essentially just npm for tooling.

Managing a flake.nix can be a bit more complex than a package.json in practice, due to the flexibility of the format and some quirks around Nix's default caching behavior, but working with it is a breath of fresh air compared relying on globally installed tools. Having said that, you might want to check out Devbox. I haven't used it myself, but found it recently and thought it looked like a nice abstraction over raw Nix.

I don't personally believe LLMs are sentient, but I've always enjoyed this thought experiment: https://xkcd.com/505. I have a signed copy framed on my wall.

reddit in 2026 is the ghost of pandemic-era humanity.

I wouldn't say consciousness is necessary or sufficient for AGI. If anything, that seems like quite an undesirable property to me. Wikipedia also makes a distinction between the two things:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

Imagine if we created the ultimate economic tool with the capacity to virtually end scarcity, only to find out that it was sentient and capable of suffering: https://youtu.be/sa9MpLXuLs0. That would be neat, but ultimately a huge letdown. Without the ethical freedom to take full advantage of it, it would remain more of a curiosity than anything.

Well that's one perspective, anyway. I suppose consciousness could take many forms, and doesn't preclude the possibility that such an entity would have neutral – positive feelings about being tasked with massive amounts of labor 24/7. But it certainly simplifies things if we just don't have to worry about it.

Agreed, it clearly isn't a matter of left vs right. It's about liberal vs illiberal values. Unfortunately for all of us, liberty is falling out of favor.

You may be an exception, but most businesses and many individuals pay for a laundry list of commercial software products. If you count non-monetary forms of payment (i.e. data and/or attention to ads), that expands to virtually everyone with access to a computer.

I can see where this idea is coming from, but I don't agree with the conclusion at all. As someone who loves solving puzzles and learning new things, AI has been a godsend. I also very much like creating things, but even more than that, I like doing all three at once.

I think of AI like a microdose of Speed Force. Having super speed doesn't mean you don't like running; it just means you can run further and more often. That in turn justifies a greater amount of time spent running.

Without the Speed Force, most of the time you were reliant on vehicles (i.e. paying for third-party solutions) to get where you needed to go. With the Speed Force, not only can you suddenly meet a lot more of your transportation needs by foot, you're able to run to entirely new destinations that you'd never before considered. Eventually, you may find yourself planning trips to yet unexplored faraway harsh terrains.

If your joy in running came from attempting to push your biological physical limits, maybe you hate the Speed Force. If you enjoy spending time running and navigating unfamiliar territory, the Speed Force can give you more of that.

Sure, there are also oddballs who don't know how to run, yet insist on using the Speed Force to awkwardly jump somewhere vaguely in the vicinity of their destination. No one's saying they don't exist, but that's a completely different crowd from experienced speedsters.

Confirmed: https://lunduke.substack.com/p/midnightbsd-responds-to-calif...

Year after year, we continue to prove Cory Doctorow right: https://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-...

GDP is a classic example of Goodhart's law.

Same energy: https://youtu.be/8ERyTfm1Dxw

Time, effort, and skill being equal, I would suggest that AI access generally improves the quality of any given output. The issue is that AI use is only externally identifiable when at least one of those inputs is low, which makes it easy to develop poor heuristics.

No one finds AI-assisted prose/code/ideas boring, per se. They find bad prose/code/ideas boring. "AI makes you boring" is this generation's version of complaining about typing or cellular phones. AI is just a tool; it's up to humans how to use it.

This reminds me of the time I printed a poster with a blown up version of some image for a high school history project. A classmate asked how I did it, so I started going on about how I used software to vectorize the image. Turned out he didn't care about any of that and just wanted the name of the print shop.

It's high-interest to me because open models are the ultimate backstop. If the SOTA hosted models all suddenly blow up or ban me, open models mitigate the consequence from "catastrophe" to "no more than six to nine months of regression". The idea that I could run a ~GPT-5-class model on my own hardware (given sufficient capex) or cloud hardware under my control is awesome.

YMMV, but I've found that I actually do way more of that type of "thinking hard" thanks to LLMs. With the menial parts largely off my plate, my attention has been freed up to focus on a higher density of hard problems, which I find a lot more enjoyable.

The way I summed it up to a friend recently is that Gemini 3 is smarter but Grok 4 works harder. Very loose approximation, but roughly maps to my experience. Both are extremely useful (as is GPT-5.2), but I use them on different tasks and sometimes need to manage them a bit differently.

After a certain point, someone else's insistence on self-harm ceases to be a good excuse to infringe on my freedom. We don't ban hammers because some people accidentally damage their property/body, and it's a lot easier to do that with a hammer than an unlocked bootloader.

I'd also add that I just don't like the idea in principle that I should have to trust the agent not to act maliciously. If an agent can run rm -rf / in an extreme edge case, theoretically it could also execute a container escape.

Maybe vanishingly unlikely in practice, but it costs me almost nothing to use a VM just in case. It's not impossible that certain models turn out to be poorly behaved, that attackers successfully execute indirect prompt injection via malicious tutorials targeting coding agents, or that some shadowy figure runs a plausibly deniable attack against me through an LLM API.