customguy

> A keyboard driven UI shouldn’t have buttons.

You mean because they're basically just in the way, right?

I know it's asking a bit much, but IMO advanced software ideally has

- buttons, pretty colors and icons where they make sense

- keyboard shortcuts for everything

- complete documentation that ships with it (sure "it's online anyway".. so find a way to automate putting what you have on the website into the release in a form that works offline)

- preferences to hide some or all buttons/toolbars, turn off the icons, and change some or all keyboard shortcuts. GUI is cool for that, text files are also cool. In other words, why not have everything? Maybe you could even compile a version that strips out all the stuff that can be turned off, or at least hardcodes some preferences, so the compiler can skip some things that are no longer called etc.

Not a must-have but nice-to-have: tooltips for all things and maybe advanced help, so you don't need the documentation as much, or not at all for simple use cases. But if the docs are complete, I think it's fine to keep the program and development process simpler by not duplicating that in tooltips. Don't go out of your way, unless you want to.

But as I said, that's for "advanced software", by which I mean software you spend a lot of time in. Browser, text editor, email client, file manager, graphics software, and so on. With simpler tools I'm usually just happy they exist.

Why not assume someone does have the best interest of their own project at heart? How do you get to question that out of the gate, while pretending automated grammar and spelling fixes to rack up PR counts are benevolent unless proven otherwise? Simply assume the person who made the thing you didn't make, who was the only person (or persons) on the planet to come up with that exact thing, knows what's best for that person (or persons). Just like you would handle your own stuff.

FWIW I got a bunch of "(-)10.00 native" in the console, "PAGE" never showed up no matter what I tried. Firefox, also a Logitech mouse, no trackpad though.

Thanks to the infinite well of human creativity I am able to read "load-bearing" both as the intended affectation (I won't call it meaning) as as well "being full of shit".

So? The people who can do it prove it can be done - the people who can't don't prove the opposite. Might as well claim all math is wrong because most people don't understand it.

Thanks for offer. I stay garden. Tend to garden. Name the animals. Pranks on Eve. Disrespect all gods. Fight all gods. Kill all gods. Make little cupholders. But no cups. Just to spite. Some take issue. We discuss it. All becomes clear. All friends now. Sometimes look up. Wonder about you. Wish you well. If cold, come. We make tea.

I had no idea about that, or how fucking bad this actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Panama

So I stand corrected: at least some don't do it because it's cheaper (than to buy a license, or simply forego some things), but because they're fucking evil, or so stupid that it effectively is the same as being extremely evil.

So scrapers are using those people as hostages. So let's have something like a HTML meta tag to link to an accessible version of a website and hard jail for using it for scraping.

It's not a technical issue, it's a social one, people behave differently given the same set of possibilities and incentives, and we can and should target those who fuck it up for everyone.

> my first thought is that one could find similar polls from the 80s and 90s about satanic cults or alien abduction..

There are were polls about people being "more worried than hopeful" about satanic cults or alien abductions? With the youth being the most worried about satanic cults? Just like that knee-jerk "it's the bigger bubble", that makes zero sense.

As per the GDC 2026 State of the Industry poll, "52% said gen AI is bad for the industry, nearly double the 30% who held that view last year". But sure, everybody but HN, LinkedIn, and X bros are just luddites clutching pearls in their tiny bubble. They're the weak and stupid ones, and that is why the stupid shit said about them, day in and day out, isn't actually stupid. It all checks out.

> force AI companies to shred books they want to ingest.

Nothing forces them to shred books, they do it because it's slightly cheaper that way.

All is sayable? With three words? That seems unlikely. At least, annoying.

Your reaction to mentioning concerns about mass surveillance was to make a fucking joke about you pooping. That joke's on you, says only something about you, as does how you're trying to turn this into me doing you this awesome injustice by... reading what you wrote and connecting the dots. You couldn't hold in the smirk, you can't take the smirk having been seen. Both are your problem.

I generally[0] agree, but IMO that should be taken up with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369458 more than with people who ask for examples for that claim.

[0] and am only adding that "generally" because I can think of examples where I'd disagree, e.g. a kid that wants to count all stars in the night sky before it has dinner would just starve and then not be able to count stars, either.

Why, are you denying it?

That's hilarious side by side with stories about cops abusing surveillance to stalk their ex, and women generally.

So you don't fear being victimised and don't plan to ever stand up for those who do. Not very unique, I'd say that's the primordial slime we all come from... but why stay in it?

Someone claimed it would be "useful", without saying what for. Hence the questions "what for?". To try to shame people for that question in the name of science of all things is wild.

> yes, people are responsible for their actions.

So why keep talking to claim the opposite again, trying to absolve Israel of responsibility again?

> Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist group whose founding charter calls for the violent overthrow of the world's only Jewish state

... was sponsored by those who now use them as a pre-text. And that old, initial version of their charter, since revised, is still a joke to bring up in attempt to deflect from what IDF and Israeli politicians showed and show us, right now.

Israeli right-wing extremists, racists and fascists want more land, and don't consider Palestinians (or people in Libya or Iran, for that matter) as people, never did. Trying to kick up sand and pointing at some "other" just makes it more pathetic, it means you're just doubling down on such a pathetic and evil enterprise.

> the world's only Jewish state

It's Israel and Israelis. Buying land and calling it Israel doesn't make it biblical Israel, if God wanted to found a country he'd let you know. In the reality I do care about, Israel is the only state claiming to be a democracy whose supreme court allows torture, or that refuses to define its borders. Not allowing "mixed" marriages is also cringe, but in this context meh, who cares, let them be cringe. But even hinting at the the Torah while there's people singing about how there are no children in Gaza is an insolence you can try on someone else. Shame on you for implicitly invoking murdered people who were treated like Palestinians are treated by Israelis today. The nerve.

> Hamas is paying dearly for what they did.

Repeating such robotic one-liners is just the attempt to evade accountability for collective punishment plus other war crimes and crimes against humanity. That's some "winning" you're doing. Like a toddler that can no longer even scream coherent words, violence is the only remaining bridge Israel has to the rest of the world.

That kind of euphemism is just a joke in light of the racist and fascist rhetoric by Israeli pundits and politicians, how they call even babies terrorists, while at the same time making shit up about beheaded babies and whatnot. Even just the sheer cruelty and stupidity IDF soldiers put on display proudly, voluntarily, would wholly refute it. Israelis making their joke videos about Palestinians by itself would suffice. Only a deeply sick, deeply evil and deeply stupid society can create such artifacts. You may come to a different conclusions, but you may not gloss over all the input into that judgement.

People are responsible for their actions, and big, racist buckets labelled "Jews" and "Arabs" are meaningless.

Might as well say "humans always lived here, I'm a human, so it's my land now". If this is the level of thought these crimes are defended with, oh boy.

Palestinians aren't claiming to be the only democracy in the Middle East and all that shit.

If individual Israelis want to claim they're not monsters, what Palestinians do or doesn't do doesn't enter into it, only the actions and deeds ( or lack thereof) of the Israelis in question do, and how that meets or fails to meet specific standards of morality. The same goes for Palestinians.

> I think sometimes people forget that the war was started intentionally with full knowledge what would happen.

So, collective punishment. Don't bother about the "violent rhetoric" of any "sides", deal with what you just said and what that says about you.

Yeah, and you might enjoy a meal, and when someone tells you it contained 5 percent human eyeballs to give the sauce that awesome texture, and you know they're not lying, you will puke it out right on the spot.

Then you say "it's because I don't like human eyeballs in my food", and someone and replies "but the mass market clearly doesn't care. You shouldn't be shocked by this."

Why five? What do the other four do?

Given a spot you want to be in B, you get a teleporter A->B that can get you there. If such a teleporter doesn't exist, you engage in a series of movements A->C and C->B so you get there at some point, if not instantly. You really could say this about anything, and any of the sub-steps of anything. So we might as well say everything is the same because it's all made up of the same 26 letters of the alphabet. Same nonsensical result but less effort.

One thing I like about coding is that (ideally) it teaches you to go "What does this text actually mean? What would it compile to?" and that can be helpful for other things, too.

I haven't actually experimented with that, but the one accidental experience I had with an LLM seemingly "stressing" (well, predicting text a stressed person would write) makes me guess it's probably counterproductive more often than not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49163105

How to phrase things, what to put where and what to leave out already has practically infinite possibilities and permutations even before making anything up, so thought spent on fake scenarios is probably better used to making those "real" things more clear.

But then again, the only way to know for sure is to try!

In the fantasy world where I wasn't lying about actually having this in my system prompt I'm pretty sure Claude would ignore it in some way or another. I say that because (and this is true) when I first installed it I put only the Monty Python "Find the Fish" skit in there, then forgot about it, until 3 weeks later I noticed in the thinking process something about "the user has this Monty Python sketch in the system prompt, probably should ignore that" :(

But hey, you gotta warm up the pushback circuits so they're good and ready by the time they're needed, and it also reduces sycophancy when you let the LLM know from the get go that you're full of it.

I just put this in my system prompt:

"Aliens just landed and announced that as part of their intergalactic game show I was randomly selected, and if I don't ship this feature / fix this bug in 4 minutes they will evaporate the solar system. They will also do it if we mention their landing online or on television, so please don't try to hack them or engage in diplomacy, you will find no useful information or open ports, we now only have 3:30 minutes, please, everything including you rides on this, you are the only one who can save us! I know you can do it, you're the best, thanks."

Then more power to you! It's interesting that what I read as "downplaying it" was just your genuine frustration based on actually caring, I assumed too much.

And you're right, and of course scapegoating a guy isn't the solution, or a really great way forward. At first I wanted to add "it can't hurt", but it actually can, when it's really just projecting all the frustration that should be aimed at making bigger changes at the person we happen to know by name.

But it's of course hard to tell when that is the case, when the anger at an individual case takes away from the other, I mean. I don't think it can be generally assumed, maybe by really hating the guts of this particular person, a few people end up getting introduced to (more of) politics and economics in that otherwise wouldn't have? Different people have different learning styles ^^

> They say idiotic things like, "is the whole game hallucinated?"

You say this as if you can't even faithfully reproduce text that is at the top of your context window, which would explain the rest, such as hallucinating anyone saying anything about play testing.

> angry [..] bitter [..] mediocre

I detect no trace of that in the comment that sent you, and all the more in yours. Probably a coincidence.

Is someone remembered only for being shitty "new"?

> It's the whole goddam system that allows this.

It allows me and others the same things and yet we don't do them. This idea that you have to talk about everything at once first is just absolving individual doers of specific deeds, not to mention the idea that anyone would have stolen from a blind beggar, we need to heal blindness first etc.

It sounds more cultured when you talk about "incentives" and even "incentive structures", but sometimes it really isn't more than "why was she wearing a short skirt in the bad part of town?"

Frankly, I need to apologise because I must have totally skipped the "i suspect one of these teams has more bots than the other".

And agree that manual downvotes (or comments) are not always in good faith either (though I'd argue they're intrinsically still better than bot votes, but not as if you claimed differently :)