savolai

Wish it returned more unfiltered items tho.

the comparison to choking makes sense on a surface level. once you look at nanoplastics it changes. they are small enough to pass through gut walls, enter the bloodstream, and even reach the brain.

” Still, fish exposed to virgin- and marine-plastic treatments show signs of stress in their livers, including glycogen depletion, fatty vacuolation and single cell necrosis. Severe glycogen depletion was seen in 74% of fish from the marine-plastic treatment (n = 19 fish), 46% of fish from the virgin-plastic treatment (n = 24 fish) and 0% of fish from the control treatment (n = 24 fish). Fatty vacuolation was seen in 47% of fish from the marine-plastic treatment, 29% of fish from the virgin-plastic treatment and 21% of fish from the control treatment. Single cell necrosis was seen in 11% of fish from the marine-plastic treatment and in 0% of fish from the control and virgin-plastic treatment. An eosinophilic focus of cellular alteration, a precursor to a tumor, was seen in one fish from the virgin-plastic treatment (Figure 4b) and a tumor, a hepatocellular adenoma (comprising 25% of the liver), was seen in one fish from the marine- plastic treatment (Figure 4c).”

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep03263

that is way beyond mechanical damage. it’s more like chronic low-grade poisoning with poorly understood long-term effects.

microplastics are also now found in basically every environment. arctic ice, rainwater, human placentas, fish, honey. the exposure is constant and increasing.

climate change is still the more immediate and catastrophic risk, no doubt. microplastics are more like a slow, persistent systems rot. over time they could undermine ecosystems from the bottom up. if plankton or filter feeders start collapsing from plastic toxicity, food chains could unravel. that would affect humans too.

so it’s not one or the other. these problems compound each other. ocean warming stresses marine life, and plastic pollution just piles on more stress. both are outputs of the same extractive system built on burning carbon and dumping waste into shared environments.

climate change is more urgent. but microplastics are not trivial. just more quiet.

The lack of direct documentation/instructions or link in the terminals to official rules strikes me as horrible ux. You basically just have to be in the know or know who to ask?

That’s why we’re introducing Gemini CLI, an open-source AI agent that brings the power of Gemini directly into your terminal. It provides lightweight access to Gemini, giving you the most direct path from your prompt to our model. While it excels at coding, we built Gemini CLI to do so much more. It’s a versatile, local utility you can use for a wide range of tasks—from content generation and problem solving to deep research and task management.

We’ve also integrated Gemini CLI with Google’s AI coding assistant, Gemini Code Assist, so that all developers — on free, Standard, and Enterprise Code Assist plans — get prompt-driven, AI-first coding in both VS Code and Gemini CLI.

⸻

Unmatched usage limits for individual developers

To use Gemini CLI free of charge, simply log in with a personal Google account to get a free Gemini Code Assist license. That free license grants access to Gemini 2.5 Pro and its massive 1 million token context window. To ensure you rarely (if ever) hit a limit during this preview phase, Google offers the industry’s largest allowance: 60 model requests per minute and 1,000 requests per day — at no cost.

If you’re a professional developer who needs to run multiple agents simultaneously or prefers specific models, you can use a Google AI Studio or Vertex AI key for usage-based billing, or subscribe to a Standard or Enterprise Code Assist license.

⸻

Powerful models in your command line

Now in preview, Gemini CLI brings serious AI power to your terminal, supporting everything from code understanding and file manipulation to command execution and dynamic troubleshooting. It’s a fundamental upgrade to your workflow, enabling you to write code, debug issues, and streamline your tasks using natural language.

Its power comes from built-in tools allowing you to: • Ground prompts with Google Search, fetching real-time external context. • Extend functionality via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) or bundled extensions. • Customize prompts and behavior for your specific use cases. • Automate workflows by running Gemini CLI non-interactively inside scripts.

Gemini CLI even supports creative use cases — like making a short video about a ginger cat’s adventures across Australia using Veo and Imagen.

⸻

Open and extensible

Gemini CLI is fully open source under the Apache 2.0 license, so you can inspect, understand, and verify how it works — including its security implications. Google expects (and encourages) developers to contribute: report bugs, suggest features, improve security, and submit code.

It’s also built to be extensible, based on standards like MCP, system prompt files (GEMINI.md), and flexible settings for both individual and team customization. The terminal is a personal space, and Gemini CLI is designed to adapt to it.

⸻

Shared tech with Gemini Code Assist

Sometimes, an IDE is still the best tool. When that’s the case, Gemini Code Assist delivers. Whether you’re a student, hobbyist, or pro, you get the same tech that powers Gemini CLI — now in VS Code.

Drop a prompt into the chat window using agent mode, and Gemini Code Assist will get to work: writing tests, fixing bugs, building features, or even migrating your code. It builds multi-step plans, recovers from failed paths, and proposes smart alternatives.

Gemini Code Assist’s agent is more than a chatbot — it’s a collaborative, reasoning agent that elevates how you write, review, and refactor code.

⸻

Easy to get started

Getting started is dead simple. All you need is an email address to install and run Gemini CLI. With industry-leading free-tier limits, full open source access, and tight IDE integration, Gemini CLI is your new AI-powered sidekick — right inside the terminal.

Yes, uxers have to balance business and user needs. That is the power dynamic of business we live in, it’s not typically the driving force of actual uxers themselves.

At the core the ethos of the human centered design (HCD) is being an advocate for the needs of actual users. Being seen as the ”enemy” on HN feels demoralizing, as a person that sits on both sides of the fence.

I feel gladness about seeing the truth of my experience about this. I would like there to be more camaraderie between uxers and developers, and of course it being a more common scenario to be able to drive a genuinely shared vision also with business leadership.

If you have a source for ”modern ux doctrine”, i’d love to hear about it to have an actual discourse.

* do unit conversions by a multiplier - showing converted values in ui and converting on read and store

* hiding some (empty and irrelevant for specific situation) fields conditionally on values of other fields

would make this a much better fit.

Are you saying this isn’t a bug?

What surprisingly good policies may have also emerged? Where was old times better than current environmental awareness?

It seems warped to talk if these only as success stories.

Personally I find the attached caps handy. :)

To take into account the remaining subjectivity, there is usability testing. Most findings start to repeat themselves after 5 representative test subjects. But if you don’t test at all, you’re just shooting in the dark, as may have been with this gnome design.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

1. *Consistency and Standards* Claim: "The 'View Options' dropdown didn't contain view options, but rather sort options, and I didn't realize it was a split button with two completely different functions."

Violation: This breaks Consistency and Standards. The user expects consistent terminology and functionality, but the dropdown name doesn't match what it actually does, leading to confusion.

2. *Visibility of System Status* Claim: "Hidden scroll bars... hides information not only about what I can do with the GUI itself, but also about where I'm currently positioned."

Violation: Violates Visibility of System Status. Hidden scrollbars prevent the user from knowing their position in the list or file system, making it difficult to navigate.

3. *User Control and Freedom* Claim: "I miss a button for going one level up, to the parent directory. There are buttons for going back and forward in the navigation history, but that's not the same thing."

Violation: Violates User Control and Freedom. Not having an obvious way to go up a directory removes essential control, forcing users to rely on less intuitive navigation methods.

4. *Recognition Rather Than Recall* Claim: "It seems this editing mode can only be activated using a keyboard shortcut, Ctrl-L, which isn’t immediately apparent—or, to be frank, very logical."

Violation: Violates Recognition Rather than Recall. The user should not need to remember specific keyboard shortcuts to access common functionality. The UI should present these options visibly.

5. *Error Prevention* Claim: "Moving windows by clicking on icons that already have a specific function feels unintuitive and introduces an unnecessary risk of misclicking."

Violation: Violates Error Prevention. The user can easily move the window unintentionally when trying to interact with icons, which increases the chance of errors.

6. *Help and Documentation*

Claim: "Searching and then browsing the built-in help for 'list view' didn’t actually help me find out how to enable the list view."

Violation: Violates Help and Documentation. The help system fails to guide users to solutions for basic tasks, which defeats its purpose.

7. *Aesthetic and Minimalist Design* Claim: "Tooltips are either misleading, or comically uninformative and thus annoyingly distracting."

Violation: Violates Aesthetic and Minimalist Design. Tooltips should convey useful information without being intrusive. Redundant and irrelevant tooltips clutter the interface.

8. *Flexibility and Efficiency of Use*

Claim: "In Gnome Files, we’re instead given a handful of features scattered across the UI. Hidden features (accessible solely through keyboard shortcuts) can only be learned by browsing what is best described as a non-interactive menu."

Violation: Violates Flexibility and Efficiency of Use. Hidden shortcuts reduce the efficiency for experienced users and make the interface less discoverable.

9. *Match Between System and the Real World* Claim: "Menu names and their contents are confusing, with 'View Options' actually being sort options."

Violation: Violates Match Between System and the Real World. The system should use terminology and design elements that align with user expectations, but here the names contradict their function.

10. *Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors* Claim: "Context-clicking in the top part of the window gives spurious and unpredictable results."

Violation: Violates Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors. Inconsistent behavior in the context-click menus makes it difficult for users to understand or recover from unexpected results.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-testing-101/

2. Human-Computer Interaction is a scientific field within Computer Science, and this is stuff from any 101 course. Do we really need to cite belief in gravity each time just because self-appointed ”developers” haven’t done the work of learning the basics?

Start here: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

It’s your comment that’s the rant. OP has actual data from decades of research they are applying.

Quoting myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303387