ziml77

I've always been baffled why we just hand the man pages over to a normal pager rather than something that actually understands their structure. That "look up a flag" case is exactly what bothers me constantly when viewing man pages. And the search they say they should be using doesn't even work consistently since the flag might not be the first non-whitespace thing on a line if there's aliases.

Yes AI has taken away the tedium, but a lot of that could already be overcome by leveraging your text editing tools well or with basic code generation (such as being able generate the skeleton of a class from an interface).

And there was something nice about still having to put in the manual work in those cases. It let me process what the code is actually doing and gave me the opportunity to internalize it in a way that just doesn't happen with AI. It also sort of gave me a thinking break where I was engaged at just the right level to let the thoughts about the more interesting parts float around in my head. With AI writing all the code, I feel like I'm either fully engaged with those thoughts or not engaged at all. And that's a bit of a problem because aha moments often happen when the idea is in that middle area of thought.

The AI bros want it both ways. Both "It's just a tool!" and "It's the AI's fault, not the human's!".

I'm a little wary of believing this without confirmation. It certainly sounds like something an app from a big Chinese company might do, but the LLM writing style with em-dashes replaced by double hyphens looked like someone trying to hide that they use an LLM. And I noticed that the account for the Gist submission is only 3 hours old. And then looking here the account on HN is also only 3 hours old. Seems a little sketchy to me.

It's not, but do you really think the people having Claude build wrappers around Claude were ever aware of how services like this are typically offered.

If you tell me "no fucking way" by running it through an LLM, I will be far more pissed than if you had just sent me "no fucking way". At least in that case I know a human read and responded rather than thinking my email was just being processed by a damned robot.

I'm feeling the same way. It's quite the contrast from all the hype posts that make it sound like you give the AI a rough idea of what you're looking for and then it will build it from start to finish on its own.

But there's no enhancement here. That's just the native date picker control with a bit of styling on the textbox portion of it.

Did that actually have hard data to back that up? Because publications that don't use subscriptions still need people to show up and look at ads. So they are motivated to publish the clickbaitiest things possible. Maybe the difference in that case is that they will publish content that attracts people from various political extremes? That certainly wouldn't make them less polarized though.

What does Backblaze's backup software have to do with B2? Backblaze B2 is just storage that exposes the same API as S3. You can use any backup software that supports S3 as a target.

Oh golf carts were awesome in small lake communities in PA. Was much better than driving cars down those narrow roads and made much more sense for shorter distances. Plus kids got more freedom since we were allowed to drive the carts well before we could get drivers licenses (Might not be good to be as lax in a larger city though)

A text editor that can't render clear text is wild...

I'm sort of happy to see all these things I run into listed out as issues people have so I know it's not just me experiencing and being bothered by these behaviors.

All of these bother me, but the null/default-value returns drive me insane. It makes the code more verbose and difficult to follow, and in many cases makes the code force its way through problems that should be making it stop. Please, LLM, please just throw an exception!

I wish they made this clearer as being the issue. It's what it came across to me like, but I couldn't actually say for sure that's what they meant because the CVE pages didn't make it obvious. And the comments here didn't help because everyone is just complaining about feature creep rather than discussing the actual problem.

Anyway, what this now has me thinking is, should protecting against this be expected to be done per-app or should it be at the OS level? It seems like it would make more sense to have the OS keep records on what application is allowed to open what kinds of links. Maybe with some mechanism to allow the app to cooperate with the OS if they want finer-grained permissions (such as a chat app passing the poster's user ID to the OS when invoking the link, so you could set an 'always allow' rule for links from specific users rather than the full app).

I don't think using something fun as an attack vector is anything new at all. It's an easy way to have someone let their guard down because you want to play around and aren't thinking how something silly could actually be out to get you.

I've noticed that it's super easy to end up with tons of extra lines of code when using AI. It will write code that's already available (whether that's in external libraries, internal libraries, or code already the same project). I don't mind trying to keep dependencies down, but I also don't want every project to have its own poorly tested CSV parser.

It also also often fails to clean up after itself. When you remove a feature (one that you may not have even explicitly asked for) it will sometimes just leave behind the unused code. This is really annoying when reviewing and you realize one of the files you read through is referenced nowhere.

You have to keep a close eye out to prevent bloat from these issues.

Yes walmart is so cost effective huh? https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2025/12/18/how-w...

Maybe your context is different, but all I can say is that I used to consider email to be something that you respond to when you get to it. Yet after enough complaints were raised against me I had to change that behavior and reply immediately even if it was just to say "I will look into this".

I am not personally upset if people don't get to my emails right away, because if I have anything actually urgent I'll get a Teams message out to the person who I know can handle it. (That does change a bit if the communication to to an external vendor in which case it's going to their support team who I do expect to respond promptly).

I'm not usually very cynical, but either of those seems equally likely as what's going on here.

Nah it doesn't look AI generated to me.

And it's not like Discord actually cares. They just care about appearing like they care. Something to keep the heat off of them from regulators and angry parents.

The site is called The Economist so I thought this was going to be about not having enough choices for tenor on loans and similar contracts.

That would be the right way to make this distinction. But of course the FDA is totally fine letting people be misled by ambiguity if it benefits the companies selling these products.

Most people do expect timely replies to emails. If you act like taking days to respond to an email is normal, people will get very upset with you.

No it doesn't. The number would be the percentage of additional housing needed. Existing housing doesn't suddenly disappear each year.

> No one in a developed, Western society is an island

And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.

The domain expired a few days ago and was purchased by someone else and then changed. There's a recreation of the original here https://html5zombo.com/

Are people who want to have kids really struggling to have them though? Keep in mind that fertility rate is not actually about fertility (not directly at least). It's a measure of the kids being had rather than a measure of the capability that the name would lead people to think.

> Then please explain why birth rates throughout human history, when life was vastly more difficult and dangerous than it is now, were so much higher?

Because having kids then was a way to increase quality of life. The kids could be put to work from a young age and help make money. Now, with so much modern tech doing physical tasks efficiently, a kid isn't going to add much value and instead is going to be a money sink.