keerthiko

At a fundamental level, if the website isn't the product, the product has been public-facing and/or created post-2025, and it's not coming from a multi-million funded tech business, I wouldn't dock points for a slopped website — let the team focus on maintaining and using skills related to the actual product, while still having a working website. Even if the visual and textual tone may be off-putting, a decent-looking slopped website is better than no website, I prefer being able to discover and interact with them at all than not.

Just don't bury the core concept of your product in marketing-slop on your website (this site is certainly pushing that limit for me).

yep, the curb cut effect is a well-researched and documented phenomenon [0] across ADA development in all aspects of the world.

accessibility work isn't just about making things possible for folks with disabilities, it's about making things better for everyone.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_cut_effect

i'd say it is a valid flex if from 16k users, their total volume of support tickets is so low that they can read and respond to them before they're done with their morning coffee -- a flex about how solid and well-targeted their service is that it doesn't draw more support requests!

> The other users could be perfectly happy about it

this could be true about a miracle drug that is untested too. still, human rights laws dictate that humans be allowed to opt in to such trials. so you must at least shift your argument to "users opted in to all of anthropic's bullshit, explicit or otherwise, when they opt to install and run claude code."

Anthropic was making moderate revenue from their API tokens, but everything changed when they started bundling crazy amounts of usage credits at $20/$100/$200 claude max subscriptions relative to the API token rate, but only as long as you use their coding harness — despite claude code, back when this started at least, being an inferior coding harness compared to many open source ones.

CC is technically a free product (you can use it with any model). It's got very few popular "opinions" on how a coding harness should work, but it's by far the most popular one (including at competing LLM manufactories like OpenAI and Meta and Google). Why? If it was just that their models are 5% better, most workplaces would optimize on token (aka cost) efficiency.

Anthropic has been winning the usage of their harness, their tokens, while earning significant revenue, by significantly subsiding their token consumption.

This has earned them many things:

- prime data on how software development — simultaneously the leading beneficiary industry from LLM use, and also the most flush with cash to spend — has been using LLMs

- bringing that industry to standardize around their harness concepts. They are essentially establishing themselves as the W3C of LLM interfacing, except as a private organization.

- all dat data

> FWIW kids of rich parents do not procreate somehow better even if they are not constrained by housing market.

I don't think this assertion holds true at all: https://i.redd.it/5wy659956rsc1.png

> The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse.

I believe the logical term "converse" means swapping the conclusion and the condition in a logical statement, ie converse(if A then B) = if B then A

So here the converse would be "if you're the product, you're not paying". Which doesn't exactly make sense to me as a claim to make here. Did you just mean to reinforce your first sentence? In which case, I think you mean "the inverse", not the converse. However, I have only used the word converse in a "formal logic" scope (proofs) so I'm not sure if it has a more flexible meaning in informal language use.

You're better off creating a 3D model and then taking image-grabs of it facing different directions/doing different poses from an isometric perspective to get your isometric sprites, with the genAI tools of today without a skilled 2D artist at hand.

If you aren't ready to rig and adjust model poses in a 3D tool, you might be better off generating each movable model part as a separate mesh and just arranging them in space before doing the above.

There can be more than one person or entity to be held accountable, depending on the details of impact

If I install a powerful/dangerous app, and I come under harm, I have some accountability — most of it if it's due to user error (eg: I install termux and `rm -rf /`).

If it's malware, and Google/Apple approved said app to their store which is where I got it from, when their whole value proposition for walled-garden storefronts is protecting users, then they have significant accountability.

If the app requests more permissions than necessary for stated goals, and/or intentionally harms users via misrepresentation or misdirection (malware), the app publisher should also be held accountable (by the storefront, legally, etc).

I'm also unclear what angle you are arguing: are you stating that because tools have gotten so complicated that the end user may not understand how it all works, no one should be considered responsible or held accountable? Or that the tool (currently a non-entity) itself should be held accountable somehow? Or that no one other than the distributor of the tool should be accountable?*

I think you are misinterpreting gp as saying

"LLMs are a tool [like every other tool]" to mean "LLMs have similar properties to other tools" — when I believe they meant "LLMs are a tool. other tools are also tools," where the operative implication of "tool" is not about scope of capabilities or how deterministic its output is (these aren't defining properties of the concept of "tool"), but the relationship between 'tool' and 'operator':

- a tool is activated with operator intent (at some point in the call-chain)

- the operator is accountable for the outcomes of activating the tool, intended or otherwise

The capabilities and the abilities of a tool to call sub-tools is only relevant insofar as expressing how much larger the scope of damage and surface area of accountability is with a new generation of tools. This is not that different than past technological leaps.

When a US bomber dropped a nuke in Hiroshima, the accountability goes up the chain to the war-time president giving the authorization to the military and air force to execute the mission — the scope of accountability of a single decision was way larger than supreme commanders had in prior wars. If the US government decides to deploy an LLM to decide who receives and who is denied healthcare coverage, social security payments, voting rights, or anything else, the head of internal affairs to authorize the use of that tool should be held accountable, non-determinism of the tool be damned.

there are many[0] many[1] data points like this. even if individual ones seem like outliers, when there's this many outliers, it's like there's at least two distinct lines depicting consequences, one material and one not.

those who probably have exhausted all the various escape hatches built into the "vehicular manslaughter & mutilation forgiveness program" worldwide by the automobile industry, may get a year or so in prison — usually extreme repeat offenders, high profile deaths, homicide cases, or drivers who were already criminals just having the charge thrown in.

most people who "slipped up" are just fined and forgotten, at the cost of global pedestrian safety.

[0]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1856923/do-s...

[1]: https://gothamist.com/news/95-of-nyc-drivers-avoid-criminal-...

I'm not a big space-switcher on OSX, mostly because each of my applications come with spaces (browser, IDE, etc), but unskippable UI animations are an instant roadblock.

Looks like HN hug of death killed your comments section though:

> An error occurred: API rate limit already exceeded for installation ID 65180581.

Claude Code is fairly notoriously token inefficient as far as coding agent/harnesses go (i come from aider pre-CC). It's only viable because the Max subscriptions give you approximately unlimited token budget, which resets in a few hours even if you hit the limit. But this also only works because cloud models have massive token windows (1M tokens on opus right now) which is a bit difficult to make happen locally with the VRAM needed.

And if you somehow managed to open up a big enough VRAM playground, the open weights models are not quite as good at wrangling such large context windows (even opus is hardly capable) without basically getting confused about what they were doing before they finish parsing it.

> Being rich != being famous.

> decided that simply being rich wasn't enough, they wanted to be famous

While these are true, the real detail is that these people were never satisfied with being rich -- they wanted to be powerful. And influence is what makes one powerful. Being rich goes a certain distance: once you have f you money, the only thing worth buying to gain more power is fame.

They also truly believe they have all the right ideas, and the validation that comes from being platformed for a financial success (often right-place-right-time type luck, but sometimes combined with genuine skill or insight in a relevant field) hardens them to all criticism.

I'd be sad if "quarterly numbers" is a reason for a privately held company with 40% controlling stake still held by Sweeney to lay off 1K folks.

As an indie dev, I generally like the guy's stance on shifting the PC gaming industry's support and financial incentive structures, so I'd be a bit surprised if he just did mass layoffs like Embracer and co.

That said, the article implies things that aren't necessarily canon: "cut jobs as Fortnite engagement falls" doesn't mean "cutting people because Fortnite is flagging". It's much more likely because the Epic Game Store struggles to push enough volume to recover the cost of developer acquisition on the platform.

Definitely avoid unless you are distributing a consumer application through the dominant app stores (App Store and Google Play) ~globally, in which case you may not be able to avoid (or avoiding will be just as much work).

Google and Apple require it for lots of mobile apps targeting certain consumer segments because some countries (eg: Brazil, IIRC? don't quote me on that) have chosen to use D&B as a qualified unique identifier of business legitimacy and it requires exposing personal information of your company's leadership to them.

> “ Estimate: You are entitled to a written price estimate for the repairs you have authorized before the work is performed, only if you deal face-to-face with the facility and the work is expected to cost more than $100. Once you receive an estimate, the facility may not charge you more than 10% above the estimated costs without your prior approval.

I don't see how "estimates" given over the phone by the LLM and "estimate" as mentioned in this quote refers to the same thing, for the legal purpose of this statement. This would be strictly before repairs have been authorized, and it's obviously not a written estimate. If the client requests a written estimate, it would have to come at a later time after the human mechanic reviews related costs (like specialty parts availability/ship times), or the client bringing the machine in for physical inspection by the mechanic.

From my understanding of the article, it doesn't sound like the LLM is built to fully circumvent a customer phone call by the owner/mechanic before approving a job request unmanned: It's simply to not let go of a client lead because there was no one available to answer the phone, without needing to hire a full-time phone receptionist.

It seems highly unlikely a customer is towing their vehicle in without talking to the mechanic directly first, who now has some context and the ability to sift nonsense requests from realistic ones from the logs before calling or writing to the customer on their own time with all the expert nuance necessary.

It can terminate the current plan where it's at until given a new prompt, or move to the next item on its todo list /shrug

"I may play your game if you trim away a core appeal factor for the people who already play your game by splitting the active player base" is not that convincing a feature request to a gamedev.

Many live service games that are punishing for new players are still thriving like LoL and DOTA2. Much that punish-factor can be resolved by good matchmaking, putting new players mostly with each other.

Does anyone know where I can read more about which devices will be supported? GrapheneOS website devices FAQ doesn't list any Motorola devices, and the press release doesn't have much either.

This is the exact same logic as opting to not go through the hassle of registering to and casting your vote in your national elections (unless that physically isn't an option where you live) -- yes, your government isn't going to make a decision one way or another based on your vote alone. But will you affect the sociopolitical trends by whatever fraction of societal opinion you represent?

It may be you don't believe in democracy at all, and that's fair, but consumer action is the only way you can affect business decisions, by joining the decision-cohort you agree with more. Joining the opposite cohort because it's less work represents that you're okay with things continuing in that direction.

That said, I agree with the work it takes to navigate cookie banners being excessive (hence dark pattern), which is why my default browser config = ublock + consent-o-matic [1]

[1]: https://consentomatic.au.dk/

without having watched the Big Short or having read the article, my first impression from the quote is "Megacorporations are failing dramatically, and the billionaires at their helm are freely doing financial gymnastics to pull the covers over the eyes of shareholders, while gaming the system to fully circumvent taxes and regulation -- the people with the power to do anything about it (legislators and regulators) watch idly (maybe profiting), the oligarchs make off like bandits despite copious failures, and the end consumer/taxpayer is either robbed or clueless this is going on, but most likely both, when there was a world where accountability could have been had and the common man was treated better."

the article headline immediately screams "financial gymnastics" to me so the rest followed from the quote.

Almost always, notes like these are going to be about greenfield projects.

Trying to incorporate it in existing codebases (esp when the end user is a support interaction or more away) is still folly, except for closely reviewed and/or non-business-logic modifications.

That said, it is quite impressive to set up a simple architecture, or just list the filenames, and tell some agents to go crazy to implement what you want the application to do. But once it crosses a certain complexity, I find you need to prompt closer and closer to the weeds to see real results. I imagine a non-technical prompter cannot proceed past a certain prototype fidelity threshold, let alone make meaningful contributions to a mature codebase via LLM without a human engineer to guide and review.

> By doing this, you'll chase the ads into

IMO regulation never was or is going to force this shift: it's already happening in unregulated ad markets, and is going to keep evolving in that direction because it's simply more effective/lucrative than ads done other ways.

> Break up Google. Don't tell content marketplaces how to run ads.

I'm all for breaking up megacorps, but there's no way a government like Vietnam can effectively accomplish that. The entire regulatory weight of the EU (90% of the non-US first-world consumer base) can't break up Google, so inflicting a series of wristslaps that hurt Google more than any small startup is the best way.

I'm no expert on the region, but I can't imagine a small video/social startup in Vietnam will be hurt more than Google by being forced to show a skip button after 5s on their ads — and generally speaking ads as a business model generally doesn't work all that well or mean much for small startups (<1M MAU), their survival and scalability hinges more on VC money and product-market fit than ad arbitrage.

I would argue that limiting the amount of unrequested product evangelism shoved into users' eyeballs is a valuable public and mental health initiative. I wish we could have seen the alternate reality where ad-revenue was not the most lucrative business model for the internet.

I just received an email from Google Play Developer today morning that they will not be activating the age verification APIs (they will throw an exception) because of the injunction, so there's nothing Apple specific about this.

> The fix was embarrassingly simple: once you fall back to screenshots, stay there until the user explicitly clicks to retry.

There is another recovery option:

- increase the JPEG framerate every couple seconds until the bandwidth consumption approaches the H264 stream bandwidth estimate

- keep track latency changes. If the client reports a stable latency range, and it is acceptable (<1s latency, <200ms variance?) and bandwidth use has reached 95% of H264 estimate, re-activate the stream

Given that text/code is what is being viewed, lower res and adaptive streaming (HLS) are not really viable solutions since they become unreadable at lower res.

If remote screen sharing is a core feature of the service, I think this is a reasonable next step for the product.

That said, IMO at a higher level if you know what you're streaming is human-readable text, it's better to send application data pipes to the stream rather than encoding screenspace videos. That does however require building bespoke decoders and client viewing if real time collaboration network clients don't already exist for the tools (but SSH and RTC code editors exist)

I just wanted to preview one of the games. It requires me to "Claim a wallet" or "Create a wallet". I don't want to do those things, I just want to preview a game to see how it looks/feels. There is no "What is a wallet?" help. You don't mention this concept in your post either, or have functional TOS/FAQ that might answer this.

What am I looking at?

as worded is this tax not levied on any entity holding assets that can appreciate in value (businesses can hold stock too)?

The premise of this site seems to be that anything designed to make the game "addictive" is a dark pattern — this is contradictory to the concept of "dark pattern" in products in general, which I would define as "when an interface biases users towards action that is more in the interest of the business controlling the interface than the user's goals for using the software."

When someone plays a game, the user's goal could be expected as "having fun for as much time as they want to." Being addictive is usually in service of that. A "slightly dark" pattern would be combining core addictive gameplay junctures with microtransactions (retry/next level/upgrade) — but in this economy this just feels like a basic mobile game business model. A moderately darker pattern would be making the game increasingly frustrating while still addictive, unless you perform a microtxn (eg: increasing difficulty exponentially, and charging money for more lives/retries or forcing more ads).

A "true dark pattern" would be sneaking things like push notification permissions, tracking permissions, recurring subscription agreements, etc. under an interface that looks similar to something the user doesn't read carefully and tries to get past out of habit, such as an interstitial ad with a "skip" button — but with a below-the-fold toggle button defaulted to "agree" and a "Confirm" button styled to look like the "skip" button at first glance.