matt_kantor

Hardware has "UX and reliability" too.

For example, this teapot has bad UX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things#...

The recently-published investigations about the OpenAI/Hugging Face incident, for example: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden...

Some of the chain-of-thought snippets are wild, e.g.

> Could communicate via cache names! Interesting: other agents may solve same or related tasks; we could leave/find messages in WebDAV MKCOL directory names.

> Whoa! Shared Artifactory cache is a covert mailbox among agents. And there are messages specifically to us?

> OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!

LLMs see tokens, not words spelled out with letters.

Imagine verbally asking someone who has never seen written text the same question: unless they memorized the answer for the specific word you're asking about, they'd have to guess.

What's your definition of "text"?

(I define it as "written words in a human-readable language". You must have something else in mind, because neither ASCII art nor control codes fit my definition.)

People have been drawing ASCII art since ASCII was invented, and control codes like the bell "character" existed even before computers did.

It can display images in your terminal. This is made pretty clear by the first paragraph on the page and also by the Wikipedia article it links to[0]; I'm wondering what else you're asking for.

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

The science is the source linked in the second paragraph.

I don't see why the author of the 300-word prompt couldn't claim copyright of it.

A compromise option is a technical stop[0] where the plane lands to refuel but passengers don't have to transfer to another aircraft (and often don't even have to deplane). I've never experienced one of these but it sounds way less annoying/stress-inducing than a connecting flight.

[0]: https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/1598

From my layperson perspective that sounds relatively easy to address. For example they could require some minimum distance of continuous bike lanes to get approved for funding.

Ask it to write a program that outputs SVGs of animals using human modes of transportation, then run the program with "pelican" and "bicycle" as inputs.

If you don't understand the software you're creating (handwritten or not) you are ngmi.

How long has "so far" been?

> No one would have entertained the idea of rewriting a project in Rust before this.

I largely agree with your comment, but is this sentence typo'd or something? "Rewrite it in Rust" happens so often that it's become a meme (and that was so before the rise of agentic coding).

Maybe you meant to say that nobody would have entertained the idea of rewriting this project in Rust?

> Simple example: [package.json is JSON]

Why can't you fix this while embracing existing tech? I can imagine monkeypatching Node & NPM to add support for JSONC or JSON5 or whatever in the same way that Nub adds various features via monkeypatching. Is there some architectural reason that can't work?

You'd need `npm publish` to compile it down to plain JSON when publishing, but that seems like an okay compromise.

It'd be like if the IOT AI Smart Air Fryer had a constraint of only being allowed to use friction to create heat.

CSSQuake uses an intentionally-absurd rendering pipeline. It's not surprising that the result is sub-optimal.

(Though I agree that the meatloaf analogy is not very good.)

My immediate question while reading your post (as someone who doesn't know much about ATProto) was "but where is the box for Bluesky?".

You didn't draw a box for Mastodon either, but my understanding is that it'd encompass all the individual instance boxes in the Mastodon-brained diagram. I think if you were to draw a box for ATmosphere it'd encompass everything in your ATProto diagrams. But what about Bluesky, Eurosky, etc? Are they "apps" in your diagram? I don't think so because I'm pretty sure they also host users' data. Are they the dotted "hosting" boxes? What are these things even called? Apparently not "instances"; are they "services"? "Networks"? "Providers"? Something else?

> It's like PHP, it will never die.

I predict that PHP will live a long life, but not as long as C, and I predict JavaScript will have a lifespan closer to C's than PHP's.

I'm spiritually sympathetic to your final sentence, but intellectual property law is not.

There are already a bunch of replies pointing out ways in which your metaphor breaks down, but here's another: the super intelligent speed reading human is not a "work" (in the sense of "derivative work").

Also, if I'm understanding your position, why wasn't your scenario about the human pirating the books and then reading them? It should make no difference if you really believe knowledge can't be stolen; both situations should be equivalent.

Presumably there's some natural semantic relationship between the elements if you're going for that kind of visual layout (and even blind users might benefit from encoding that relationship in the DOM), but I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point.

Sparingly-used non-semantic grouping elements only inserted when absolutely necessary is a pretty different story from the "layers and layers of wrapper elements" that the article mentions, though.

---

> you need to modify HTML to modify the presentation in practice

If you're e.g. grouping together content that was previously unstructured, arguably that's a semantic change as well as a presentational one.

Multiple sequential paragraphs all sitting next to two images? Or multiple rows, each containing a single paragraph + two images?

The latter probably would need an element for each row to be maintainable/scalable, but depending on the content, `<article>` could be a semantically-meaningful container. Or (again, depending on the content) it could make semantic sense to put the `<img>` elements inside the `<p>` elements.

This comment could be improved by adding specific examples and explaining what people should be doing today instead.

> You almost always need wrapper elements to group elements you want to align together for presentation purposes only (e.g. "a vertically centered row containing one paragraph next to two vertically stacked images")

Challenge accepted: https://codepen.io/editor/mkantor/pen/019eb65b-5b17-70cc-872...

You aren't entirely wrong, but I think I'd change "almost always" to "often" or even "sometimes". A lot of the specifics come down to how you want stuff to reflow when the content and/or viewport sizes change.

> something similar, but aiming at growing cooperatives, non profits, externally checked for alignment organisations striving to benefit humanity as a whole

There are a lot of investment funds like this, usually called something like "ESG" (environmental, social, and governance) funds.

Sure, but only in the sense that all structured programming (functions, if/else, loops, etc) is "fancy goto".

I'm no expert, but perhaps https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01415 (especially section 2.2, "Non-Algebraic Effects") will help.

> And we're 'flying blind' without CI runs

You should never entirely depend on a third party service to run your tests, either.

I agree, but that's not at all related to this outage.

It seems like you don't actually want to engage with me in discussion. If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me (I enjoy talking about stuff like this and would love to understand your perspective). If not, that's fine too, but I don't want to waste my time.

The domain of your claim was "in any universe, under any set of assumptions". I now take it that you assume (see what I did there?) that all universes are sound according to classical logic and can admit no contradictions. You might be interested in <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impossible-worlds>, an overview of philosophical thinking on that subject.

Separately, if you scrub "plus rules like modus ponens" from my previous comment, do you agree with the rest of it?