sodapopcan

Hey, I only learned this a few years ago myself when I was reading a book about my dog's breed! And I realize I wasn't super specific (although probably obvious) that they stare at you while they go to make sure you are on the lookout.

The article says they installed their own servers, though. What am I missing here?

I assumed you meant parents and I was saying, "but also sometimes the kids!"

What is better about it? I switched back to FireFox several years ago (with a very brief stint on Arc in there) after using Chrome for years and I couldn't describe a single hit I took in QOL. I remember, at the time at least, that FF's dev tooling had more useful things, at least for me (I couldn't tell you what those were at this point... I think I remember nicer flex/grid inspecting tools). From what I can tell, Chromium is popular because so many apps don't test on anything else, but I don't use a lot of web apps so I guess I probably don't run into this as much.

It had a pretty annoying bug on Mac (which I ass-u-me was a memory leak) up until a couple of years ago. Every time you'd try and tab back to it, there would be a delay that would very, very slowly get longer over time until you closed and opened it again. I switched over to Arc at the time but after The Browser Company so epicly dropped the ball, I switched back to FF and it's been really great ever since.

Or, "tell me your family is bearable to be around without telling me."

Dogs also figured this out, and it goes both ways. This is why they stare at you when they're going, especially when they're puppies.

If that's how it was, most people would be too terrified to use, let alone pay for, software that boasts unpredictability as a main feature.

I 100% agree with you, of course.

Ya, I've been doing this almost 20 years and never even thought about a manager position. I always tell everyone in interviews that I'm "IC for life."

I'm not calling you bad programmer, but one always has to take into account that our industry has no accreditation.

Like what?

> Boilerplate is a sign of a bad language (not a bad engineer).

It's also a sign of refusal to learn an editor or IDE deeply. Most of the ones I know have mechanisms (or plugins) for generating the boilerplate.

Although back to the language, usually the biggest boilerplate killer are macros and so many developers seem to really have a problem with them.

Oh really? I always assumed as I never thought horizontally centring was ever a huge problem. Vertical was the actual hard thing for a long time (which is something table cells could easily do since the beginning).

You caught me in that I didn't read the full article, but I read enough to see that it has this CSS which centres on both axes:

    body {
      display: grid;
      min-height: 100dvh;
      place-items: center;
    }

I've had enough of Google and I don't even work there.

> and that can be incredibly annoying

One thing you have to be careful of, mostly when working on internal tools, is that you don't end up building around the idiosyncrasies of one particular person. This is something that actually happens in some places.

I actually find "bottleneck" a nicer word than "blocker" here (although not sure if "nicer" is what you are going for). I really like building for humans and the only times I've ever truly felt excited about being a developer is when I've had direct contact with my customers. It can be very trying, but the payoff is always nice.

That's fine but it only centres horizontally. Usually when people talk about "the div centring problem" they mean x and y, dead centre (as this article is).

My time spent commenting on HN is decompressing time, engaging with (hopefully) humans. Committing to reading a blog post or article is a whole other category.

Oh ffs, I knew it was a mistake to engage with you but couldn't help myself.

Have fun.

> Plot twist, 100% likely you've read and shared humanized AI content.

I'm sure this has happened. If the author can speak with authority about everything that has written, then ya, I have to concede that is fine. It's obviously the most true when you are going to be engaging with the author. If you ask them a question and they respond, "I'm no sure, the LLM wrote it," that is a huge problem (and pretty pathetic, I might add).

> but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.

Meh, it I can find another article on the same subject written by a person then it's not too toolish. I've never liked this argument. It's the same thing with music. Even if I like a piece of music, and then I find out it's AI, I'm not going to listen to it. I can understand why people think this is stupid, but there is SO much music--even before it exponentially exploded with AI--that I can find something else I really like created by a person. Especially since when something really tickles my fancy, I like to read everything I can about the artist (which is an indirect form of engagement).

LOL, TF are you talking about? It's neither a political nor ethical, it's practical. It's about not wasting your previous time on earth reading garbage the author doesn't understand themselves.

Yes, stock photography is also lame, but at least their creators gave permission. It's my dream that "AI" is going to make us look back and reconsider some of the pre-era slop we've accepted in the name of convenience. I doubt it, though.

> People have the ability to make terrible paint images for decades and they’ve never caught anyone’s attention in a positive way

Citation needed for this one. It could be because people don't do it very much? I think a very good piece of writing coupled with a crappy but intentional MS Paint piece could be very attention catching and memorable.

> OP’s blog of white text on black background will be forgotten quickly.

I actually get annoyed with the tech crowd always complaining at seemingly the slightest bit of flair or fun added to any blog. To each their own, of course. I've seen some really slick minimal blogs but I do like it when layouts gets creative--gawdy, even!--, so long as I can read the text. And you can always use reader mode.

No idea why anyone would downvote this, it's true. As someone else pointed out "b = basic." And does anyone think it will adjust with inflation?

Everything you're saying is oddly simultaneously specific and hand-wavy at the same time. I say this because I'm not sure a lot of these things are solvable or, if they are, it's going to take lifetimes. For example:

> How do we replace the work ethic that tells us we are our jobs and idleness is immoral?

For many people it has nothing to do with morality, it's hardwired into their instincts. They want to work, and they will work.

For a lot of us who are not excited about this future it's that no one is trying to answer all the questions you laid out. Instead we have the disgusting people at the helm purposefully spreading doomerism and saying, "We'll figure it out." I think it's pretty problematic (to say the least) to care more about technological advancement than how that advancement is actually shaping up to effect people in the short term. But I know many people don't care, especially those who believe they won't be among the affected.

Wish I'd thought of this one, lol.

I'm hoping something of the opposite happens.

I still see airbrushing, along with things like music quantization, auto-tune (and manual tuning), "perfect" design, etc etc, as hugely problematic (well, airbrushing is the worst with tangible social harms among the things I listed there). All of these things are possible to use artfully, but that they've become the norm is actually pretty gross, and many people haven't so much accepted them as they have been beaten into submission to stop complaining about them.

I think this is really lost on anyone making the argument that "we've seen this before and everyone will just succumb."

What I've noticed is how much "booster" types say that "This is unlike anything that has ever happened before" and yet somehow they think the general acceptance story is going to play out "like it always does." I'm getting into "vibes" territory here because I have no data, but the AI-backlash does feel much stronger than before. I feels like there are a lot more non-artists getting not-so-trivially pissed off about this bullshit. We'll see, I guess.

> I find the idea of loving an LLM like in this post very creepy and unsettling. Even more so for one of them to do it back.

Ya, this was all I could comment on but decided to keep quiet. I guess I'm not now. I find it plain gross. Like, really gross. I'm telling myself this post is satire, and maybe it is, but I do know people like this exist.

Ya, I have an .st domain with is <my-first-name>@<first-three-letters-of-last-name>.st and I've had a few people have a lot of trouble with it. With one, it took about 6 or 7 tries to explain it to him before I just took over and typed it for him. Most people do get it, though, and sometimes think it's neat.

Don't I know it.

Agreed. Please just don't use LinkedIn and maybe LinkedIn will die.

For the times I have to use it, I use a browser plugin to hide the feed.