In the age of "Twitter"? Why Twitter specifically, not the internet or social media? I honestly feel like Twitter is losing relevance. I learned about it from TikTok for what its worth, and then read more about it here on HN. I've never understood why people put Twitter on a pedestal that I feel it doesn't deserve. Though aside from that your point stands and I totally agree with you. In reality people's/companies' constitutional rights can be infringed easily and the courts take months or even years to stop said infringement.
As a native speaker, I have to ask it to rephrase 5-10 times a day. Sometimes I actually get mad and I tell it “I can’t answer that because I don’t know what the fuck load-bearing indirection means”. I’ve gotten so frustrated that I’ve ended a session and started over.
What? When I saw you couldn’t even make the effort to tell your AI to at least make the README _pretend_ to be written for humans to read, I immediately knew this was slop and stopped looking further. Using AI to create this is totally fine, but there’s a minimal level of effort that needs to be put in.
Not sure why people post content from these horrible media sites that require a subscription to read it. I have no interest in subscribing to the Guardian. Personally I wish HN would ban submissions from these predatory sites.
To be fair I imagine it has very few users now; maybe a chicken and egg thing. Most people either get their news from a single news site or from social media these days. And no I'm not implying that no one verifies sources on these platforms, but either it's Reddit or Hacker News or TikTok or Twitter.
I’m curious—if it was unobtrusive would you feel the same way? For example if it were a game, and after you beat a level or finished a game, if the summary screen showing the stats and points from your session just had, down at the bottom, “Do you love this game? Consider leaving us a review in the App Store!”? I hate the bag popups too, especially when they get in the way of whatever I’m trying to do in the app and I’m forced to either dismiss the dialog or go do it. But is even _mentioning it to you_ you without the nag pop up too much? Deserving of a one star review?
I don’t think there’s anything definitive. 400IU/day from one study is nothing if you’re deficient. 2000IU from another study is better, but even then we don’t seem to know much about absorption from these studies. For example, did it actually raise serum levels by 10ng/ml after a year, and how did THAT correlate to positive or negative health outcomes? K2 also seems to play an important symbiotic relationship with D, and seems notably absent from these studies.
Has anyone done a RCT of D3+K2? K2 seems to be important in the absorption of D3. Another aspect that bothers me with these studies is that we’re simply supplementing the vitamin D, seemingly without measuring the change in blood levels. I took 2000IU (+K2) a day for many years in between testing my blood levels and still had <30ng/ml and had to go up to 5000IU/day. I’d like to see some further study.
At this point, it’s just you misusing the word. You WERE correct; it did mean the builders rather than the breakers. But to greater society outside of the tech industry, hacking is hacking, they don’t need a word to describe builders, and crackers sounds dumb and no one outside the tech industry would know what you were talking about. A cracker is a snack and a dated slang word to refer to white people.
As you’ll see from my comment history, I’ve been consistent on how horrible this forcible TikTok acquisition was, and don’t forget that Biden was banning TikTok just the same before Trump got into office (and that Trump started this anti-TikTok action in his first administration before that). Yes, this administration is a special kind of awful, but the last one sucked too.
In so far as bracing for draconian tracking, I already would have never worked for Meta and especially wouldn’t now. I think we can vote with our feet and not work for companies that do this.
And I’m so glad they did. Tiktok has brought so many positive changes to my life, and it never would have happened if they hadn’t built a product so good that it’s literally addictive. I don’t want the government to be my parent.
Additionally, Instagram and Facebook have tried their best to make their products as addictive as possible, yet their recommendation algorithm is so absolutely terrible (not to mention their ads) that I barely stay on the platform for five minutes when I use it.
I hadn’t, and your article lost me there to be honest. You didn’t explain the what, why, or when behind it, and it didn’t make sense to me at all. That said, I’m abnormally horrible at math.
As always with these types of things, it starts off well and I think “wow! finally someone is explaining math in a simple and straight forward way I can understand!”. And once again, they already lost me at Gaussian elimination.
>Powerful stakeholders are typically so stupid and dysfunctional that it’s effectively impossible for you to identify their needs and deliver solutions to them
I’m sorry, WHAT? How old is this author? “I fail to communicate effectively with anyone who isn’t an engineer because I lack the required empathy and perspective” is very different from “the average stakeholder is stupid and dysfunctional”. I stopped reading at this point because author is clearly someone who doesn’t take responsibility for their own failures in communication.