dmantis

> somehow young people have worse communication skills and less friends

I have a feeling that many young people sit behind the screen all the time.

My point doesn't work if you don't even try to socialize. Still have to make an effort and go through the uncomfortable awkward stage when you are shy or lost for words in most interactions.

I know enough no-drinkers who are just fine even with drinking people, that's the matter of empathy and being able to relax and being open without stimulators which is something not a given to people without a practice.

> That's a very silly argument

I disagree.

Communication is a skill like everything else. Having a constant workaround just reduces your ability to be good at it. Why would a healthy young adult make his own skills worse?

You can either get short-term gains with long-term worsening of your daily life by being incapable of new connections and genuine communications or cut the short-term low-level improvements, suffer for a year or two, learn a bit and have a better life for years to come.

It's like going to gym or do other sports. It's often hard and unpleasant at the start, but the more you're doing it, the fitter you are and the more benefits you bring to yourself in the long-term.

Comparing system in a VM with a bare metal installation is a very unfair statement. Especially without the details of the VM configuration.

A few years ago I installed MacOS in a VM on linux host in virtualbox and it was slow as hell. I don't claim that MacOS is not ready to be used though.

I dunno. I don't drink, but I do put time and effort to socialize.

It's just not related to drug consuming acts and more about sports, poker, board games, etc.

I believe that drug-related communications are flawed and closer to animal level than to actually joyful ones. It's better to have a maturity and social skills to communicate, joke and maintain a conversation with interesting people without stimulators.

I'm not from the US though so it's not about the US social scene which is mainly discussed here.

My bad, I'm not a native English speaker.

I've always though that about tinkering as in "being in love to work with inner working of things and understanding the internals, mastering stuff". Nothing pejorative.

I can't find a very good comment from HN from a few months ago with this churn of AI posts, but the idea was quite right: there were tinkerers, who loved a problem solving process, and entrepreneurs, who don't care about the problem itself and beauty of a neat solution, but only the end products to sell.

Entrepreneurs currently are in heaven, and tinkerers are in hell.

You can expect exactly HN people to read a comment saying "why would you use smth instead of" on HN.

It's a better marketing indeed, but that doesn't answers the op's question.

Between something opensource and trusted, and a proprietary potential backdoor that can send the data back to the Zuck himself you'd probably want to choose the former (cause you never know with closed sources).

I'm glad that he has shared the link as for me it's definitely useful. It's not a competition and I don't care what media talk, that's not about money.

Oh boy, Yudkowsky is a geek rock star.

> State actors can just hurt your famiily.

That actor has to know that you have something to be touched for in the first place. Which is not the case if you buy crypto without KYC unlike with the classical brokerage, for example.

> State actors can setup a shadow bitcoin infrastructure and give you the feeling that your wallet is a save bitcoin wallet. They can Hijack the website you download the initial bitcoin wallet, the nodes you talk to.

Is paranoid and not serious. Yes, they can do a lot in theory, but on practice even basic level opsec avoids it.

In reality if somebody from the state is already after you explicitly for real, you are going to die or be in prison. I can't really argue with that. Most people are not under active confrontation with the governments, but under passive snooping and pity everyday legal risks that make their lifes miserable.

In most cases they don't send hitmen neither for "foreign agents" labeled people from Russia, nor for sanctioned Russians outside from the US, for example. My point is about people who are not active fugitives, but, you know, want to keep their stuff with them without risking neither their country bank freeze, nor western-based financial infra freeze because they hold the wrong passport.

> could use one that's linked to Swiss Franks or the Singapore dollar.

Well, if only we had something like that with a proper liquidity!

USDT/USDC are useful for the exchange to fiat, but have freeze function in their contract, thus posing a risk for big longterm savings, and they rot under the inflation (which btc generally beats).

There are indeed a couple of unfreezable stablecoins, but they don't have mainstream adoption and proper liquidity. USDT kind of captured the market by being first, and USDC is heavily pushed by the major institutional players, so here we are.

But that's true, it's more about crypto in general.

Depends on the actor.

From western perspective, maybe, but there are many people in the world who don't trust neither their government, nor western ones: Iranians, Russians, some Chinese, etc.

BTC is a nice safe place for money, which can't be touched by neither of state adversaries. Underperforming some other asset classes is totally acceptable, when your expectation for the brokerage account is effectively zero after arrest/freeze/sanctions.

Everything from meta is a spyware and should be only touched inside a VM like with any other malware vendors.

Money is just a number and far less precious than personal dignity and privacy. I don't even get the idea why people really would compare something around 1k usd range in developed countries, it's a no brainer.

There is no way of redistributing those resources but violence if there is no economy.

Say, you have 98 people who have literally nothing and no established way to obtain basic needs, and 2 people who has something based on whatever.

Say, these 2 people can close their needs by asking a magic machine to do something for them, or even exchange some goods between each other, but there is no economic sense to hire anybody.

Those 98 left aren't going to sit and die, watching.

Why does that matter? b2b sector doesn't make any sense if there is no "clients" at some end point. There is no money in the end of the chain if everybody is jobless. And if 99% of the population don't have magic numbers, the magic numbers concept just doesn't make sense.

The whole modern society and capitalism exist on assumption of meritocracy: an entrepreneur takes the risks and provides the organization and gets the reward. If there is some perfect machine that always brings profits, there is no risk. Everybody can make such "organization" saying "/goal make me money". The current model also assumes that if you learn and work hard enough, then you get a success of some level. That assumption of the meritocracy also breaks.

If there is no organizational work, nor risks, nor meritocracy, nor "fair reward for hard work" the whole model fades. There are might be different rational choices. One is probably to liquidate the owners of the companies; nationalize the model's output and distribute the profits, for example. Still many questions about everyday life for completely jobless society will arrive then. It might be something else, but people generally do what they see fair, and they also want to eat something.

Ownership is a fragile idea, Russian Empire shows that pretty clearly. It exists only when most of the society agrees that the ownership is fair or when you have enough force to maintain it against those who don't, which is not the case when the majority is on the other side.

You are right, my answer was meant for parent's "“AI agent, here’s our assets, make money”" and "If every year 50% of the job disappears, how long until there is no human-ai team, just ai.". I mean it in a broader sense than just IT workers. The world will be fine without us if that's where it all stops.

If at some point most enterprises run as "agent, make me money" without any humans, then money is a dead concept.

We use money to exchange resources (actual or promised) in form of credit to each other.

If most of the population doesn't participate in the exchange, money is worthless. You can make numbers, but those are meaningless without the underlying exchange.

It's effectively a disruption of a modern society.

If there is no jobs, there is no modern economy in today's sense and "money" costs nothing.

That will trigger very interesting consequences.

What's wrong with having more sovereignty over your data and infrastructure? You don't need to stop working on the mentioned issues together but cutting foreign spies the access to your citizens data and reducing their leverage.

That's life, spies going to spy, state psychopaths from the military and the three-latter agencies exist regardless whether you see them or not and they don't care about the "common good". They must be taken into the account.

The less power humans have over each other - the better. Instead of pressuring each other to bring profits people would be able to speak like equals.

Sometimes you just can't.

For example, the banking app I have refuses to be installed from the Play Store on GrapheneOS due to "not-certified" device, but works perfectly fine when installed by Aurora.

The check seems to be purely store-based and never enforced later.

Sure. However I have a strange feeling when I read all AI praises and how productive everyone is while seeing more and more broken things everywhere. Sometimes from the same very productive people. Otherwise we might have said that maybe broken stuff goes from AI-deniers.

If everyone is doing the job of hundreds, extremely productive and everything is so easily fixed, why everything feels so slow and broken, even so basic things? That's kind of the point. I'd expect nearly perfect websites everywhere, especially from "productivity" people who mastered the flow.

Well, who knows, but in brave it looks alright, and ff for me has extremely narrow text with disproportionately huge images. I see a few upvotes so I assume at least some other users have the same.

> Single developer projects can build to the caliber and consistency of large development teams.

Yet the simple blog website static page saying that looks very weird and broken on the desktop firefox.

How large should be a development team to make proper margins in 2026?

Article literally says it adds a guid, not a binary field indicating that the image is ai generated.

It became much easier to make open source too.

The current biggest problem is reputation and QA. Ie I see hundreds of same kind of apps when I search for open source stuff on F-Droid, but I can't really say whether it was properly audited with current influx of vibe-coded stuff, whether it contains malware, is it fully vibe-coded or human evaluated the result, etc. which one of those hundreds is actually good?

When we solve the slop recognition problem, we can actually see a positive turn from enshittification, because copying products overnight without spyware became almost trivial.

LinkedIn users made slop long before LLMs, what would be left if the platform removes such a content?

I have a good experience with Huawei Band. Huawei doesn't even require to pair the watch with an official app! So I never connected it to the Internet or installed their app, paired directly with gadgetbridge from the first day.

I haven't encountered such a thing on private trackers for a very long time. Like, for years.

They usually have a very decent moderation and if they say that an entry has some particular resolution/subs/audio then it has it.

Sure, you have to stay as a seeder for some ratio/period in such trackers and can't hit-and-run, but it gives a warm feeling of contributions anyway.

On the other hand, privacy becomes a luxury. People love signaling their status and standing out from the crowd. Entire car and clothing brands exist solely because of that.

And if enough people stand out, it doesn't matter anymore.

True. Though I have mixed feelings buying new pixel from Google after all these actions.