Would love to know what prompts you used for this. Anytime I've ever tried to make an LLM create funny but satirical jokes it fails terribly and comes across cringey and try-hard. This one genuinely seems funny and absurd.

I mean, in fairness these are two completely different domains. OS development and AI business intelligence are as far apart as one can get.

That being said, given the AI context, it does sound pretty shortsighted to choose an overly saturated existing name for your new product. AI agents or LLM chat bots will definitely be confused with prompts like "hey what's this graphene project?". Dunno how tthey missed that.

Sounds like to me maybe universities should stop focusing on being cash grabbing machines and instead properly teach with a useful instructor-to-student ratio?

Sorry, if your answer as to why using a beneficial pedagogical approach is your class sizes are too large, then it sounds like your class sizes are too large!

You're not wrong. But, that type of concern usually needs to be addressed by someone at a higher pay grade than professor ;-)

It's not meant to "encourage the rich to support" the health system, it's meant to avoid completely gutting the public health system by creating a parallel pay-for-play system where only the richest pay and subsequently suck up all of the already finite resources and talent.

Introducing parallel private health care is just accelerationism for privatization wonks who want to just see the death of universal healthcare by sucking it dry for those willing to pay.

There's no magic wand with the resources available for healthcare. Creating private systems so rich people can skip the line doesnt magically create that capability, it means taking that capability from someone who maybe needed it more in the public side of things.

In most other contexts, rich people being able to spend money for some good or service would simply induce more supply ultimately making the product cheaper and better for the masses as well. The rich get to be "early adopters" buying a product when it's expensive and not very good; the poor as "late adopters" get to buy a product that is cheaper and works better once the bugs have been worked out. So...why exactly are resources and talent considered "finite" when it comes to health care and shouldn't we maybe look at FIXING that rather than take it for granted?

Consider, say, food distribution: McDonalds has traditionally made far more money as a private business catering to the tastes of the poor and middle-class than any fancy restaurant ever made catering to the rich. Do fancy restaurants like Per Se "suck up all the resources" needed to cook and serve food? Does the existence of fancy restaurants hurt McDonald's by making it harder to find burger-flippers? And does McDonalds in turn "suck up all the resources" thereby making it harder for people in some other context to find and acquire food? If not, what makes healthcare so different?

Not comparable.

If there were a limited number of licensed cooks like there are doctors, it would be far different.

Also citing Fraser Institute, a known extremely right-wing hack "think tank" is like citing a used car salesman on the benefits of buying a car. Their entire raison d'etre is to privatize any remaining public good in Canada, so they will always hunt for any kind of information or data they can to paint whatever picture they want from their lobby funds.

Oh give me a break. This argument that people's objections to advertising comes from some Pollyanna naivety over things being free is nonsense. Tell me the last time you have ever seen a company be upfront and explicitly offer a free tier where they tell you upfront exactly what they are harvesting about you and for what purpose (and no, "improving user experience" isn't being upfront) but also offer you a paid version where they explicitly promise not to do that.

"If the product is free then you are the product" is supposed to be a cautionary observation, not an axiomatic proscription.

Does anyone actually trust companies that offer paid services to not harvest their data? Whenever I see this trope I think to myself that whatever lack of regulation, oversight and enforcement lead to that being okay would equally allow for them to both take my money and harvest all my of data anyways.

This is akin to people who criticise socialised medicine or services and pejoratively characterize supporters as just wanting "free stuff", as if the concept of collective payment is naive or something

It's almost as if outside the tech bubbles most people don't understand the tech or implications. HN posters who live and breath in this space are so smug to pretend this esoteric knowledge about networking identifiers or fingerprinting is simple and that anyone can get it. These are the same people who will throw their hands up on any other esoteric topic and give up on it equally. For example, tech people so easily decry how "stupid" the law and legal jurisprudence is (because obviously if they don't understand it, it must be bullshit) but see zero irony in being smug pretentious assholes to regular people who didn't happen to major in computer science.

We shouldn't all have to be PhDs in law and jurisprudence to trust a legal system to look after our interests just like we shouldn't all have to be computer scientists to trust that technical stewards are not exploiting people's lack of knowledge.

Sick of this mentality. Oh these people are sheep idiots who don't understand the EULA euphemisms of "improved user experience " means adtech and behavioural tracking.

There's actually no continental definition in the EU constitution but yes probably in practice this is correct in terms of perception

Yeah but see, we're talking about a functionality that is inherently visual. Ergonomics has nothing to do with esthetics, and it's such a dumb excuse to hand wave aside interface issues as of they are just about "making things look pretty"

exactly, i am looking at screenshots for apps to get an idea about their functionality.

I mean, if they aren't even willing to download the one app that actually gets them the content they want to see, then *no* software will ever be something that this type of user will be interested in. Not everyone has to use an app, so why try and cater to an audience who clearly has zero interest? You're not gonna magically make it somehow even easier than "go to app store, download app" to the point that they'll use any piece of software.

No, the browser version of Plex is much simpler because you can just send a link. The receiver only needs to go through a simple "type your email and password" sign-up process, and that's it. Nothing to install, works everywhere.

Tailscale is exponentially worse, though. Not only would I have ask them to go to Jellyfin and sign up and log in, I would have to explain that they can't do that until they've installed the Tailscale app (which I have to explain because most non-techies do not know what a VPN is). Tailscale requires its own account, so they have to first sign up to that, and I have to add them as an external user first.