What do you think parent is trying to say, except that this HN comment section looks like reddit? I'm trying my hardest to apply charitable reading, but even this has limits.
My understanding as well, as if Reddit was down and redditors took to HN to distill their anger. It's not calling a specific comment like this, it's calling most of comments here like this.
Perhaps about the quality of the comments. In my opinion it's not really that bad but reddit-style comments are often cheap shots that are slightly off topic, some of which I see present here
There are many differences IMO. Moderators, for instance, censor a ton on reddit; but the UI is also different. I much preferred old.reddit.com over both the new reddit (which is utter trash) and hackernews (which is simple, but also ... strange and awkward, much more confusing than old.reddit.com - and I hate the fact that after like 5 comments, I get locked out for hours before I can make more comments, that is the worst decision hackernews ever made).
I don't think length intrinsically denotes quality. One could say that longer sentences show more quality, but I would not even be certain of that either.
The biggest difference I noticed has been between smartphone/tablet users on the one hand, and oldschool desktop computer system users. I belong to the latter group and I think we, as a group, write more, and faster. I'd also like to assume it has a higher quality, but I am not automatically convinced of that either.
Always thought this rule is hilarious because the fact that such comparisons are so overwhelmingly common that they needed to address it with this bitchy little rule (adding one link to an example per word is a classic tell that an internet moderator is spending their highly compensated moderation time Extremely Mad lol).
However, rather than understand the obvious explanation for it, that reddit and HN's karma systems encourage performative comment behavior with people trying to be epic for the peanut gallery, they make the boneheaded decision to just assume it's an "illusion". It's like Dunning-Krueger but for their theory of mind and general emotional intelligence, with the cause being obvious enough that I don't feel I need to name it.
I suspect it'll only become more common as Reddit enshittifies further and further. The platform is basically unusable for anyone, thus its suitability as a 'containment zone' for the redditor phenotype goes down with it.
I hope BlueSky makes a Lemmy-style Reddit alternative, just something to satiate people's social media-ified forum fix.
> One thing i don’t understand is how pro-surveillance advocates don’t understand that the moment they are not behind the terminal, they are the target.
I think it's three things; (a) They're just being paid not to care, (b) short-termism, and (c) are naively hoping they get to stay in the club on the other end of the surveillance. Hard to convince nearly anyone to give up short term profit for long term societal benefits.
Cynically I worry we are seeing the decline of democracy and our new overlords are seeing that too (many accelerating it). Surveillance is necessary for control. The AI, mass surveillance, and drone combination is getting pretty scary TBH.
I am experimenting with this in my project right now. I haven't reached a verdict yet, but in theory it sounds good. I think you're still paying the linking cost though?
Splitting out a project into multiple crates reduces what needs to be recompiled during development. I tend to break out areas of my application that aren't going to change regularly so I'm only having to rebuild the main application.
In a production scenario where you're probably building your application in some CI environment, unless you cache the release build artifacts to re-use when applicable, the entire project will be rebuilt every run.
It’s honestly my biggest issue right now during development. I’m refactoring into a “vertical slice” architecture and then will try crating by feature… fingers crossed.
In an ideal society, I think you just tax digital ads to help compensate for the damage from this attention economy. Maybe even use that money for education?
Look up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It explains the current situation and should be obvious that it's less than perfect. Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings. So to compensate there's the good samaritan provision which is the whole censorship thing from the right's perspective (like back during Covid) and the protection from being a publisher let's them host hate speech from the left's perspective.
Personally I think making them public square is probably the only real solution if you want to keep social media and avoid this drama, or make them liable as publishers and these platforms will disappear overnight (maybe the best result?!?)...
This carries over into LLMs I presume, which have bias and I assume are not being sued for the content the publish? I'm not really sure about how it applies to LLMs to be honest.
Regardless, other countries will have different laws, that have different takes on censorship and what private companies are responsible for.
> Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings.
I don’t see this as a problem. They could just as easily have changed their business model and invested more heavily in content moderation. Maybe it wouldn’t have been as profitable, but profit is a great motivator to do bad things.
The whole SV VC industry (and this site) start from a position that their business has a right to be profitable, so any law in the way of that is unjust.
Ok, but here we have people not from Brazil claiming that a private company is guilty of censorship but also was not guilty of censorship when government "embeds[1]" in the US would flag what they labeled disinformation and blocked discussion on Covid, Covid origins, laptops with evidence, suspended political accounts in the US, etc. So, it seems people want to have it both ways -essentially they want to censor things they disagree with and also don't want censorship of things they agree with.
[1] Of course, that was plainly censorship with a veneer of plausible deniability (it assumed those embeds could only be truthful and unbiased and in no way politically motivated).
I did this yesterday with user data to find duplicates and determine which conflicting fields should win in a merge. Took me about an hour-ish to run the experiment. I provided a good amount of context for each pair. It was underwhelming / OK at best and didn't add any value to my existing merge workflow, so I threw it out after the experiment (I kept the findings though). It was quite easy to setup and use via openrouter and extremely cheap and fast.
For fun I also tried using it at my local LLM router (all of my prompts and responses go through it for personal analytics) to decide which model to route tasks to based complexity etc. Again, underwhelming for my purposes, and so I'm not using it.
Not sure what real world use case it's best at, but I agree that it's simple enough to implement it yourself and see if it fits the type of work you are doing.
> See what they did at Volkswagen scamming the system and then refusing to own up to it.
If you mean Dieselgate, then agreed, horrible. It is worth noting that after the scandal we found out that a whole bunch of (non-german like Suzuki and Hyundai) manufacturers were actually worse (NOx) with emissions well beyond legal limits. It just didn't make the headlines nearly as much.
So while we can absolutely criticize VW, I don't think it's fair to generalize this as a german issue.
> Rails is so into agentic coding that they publish benchmarks of how effective different models are for building with rails
To each their own, but I think using Rails in the era of agents is probably a mistake. It has 2 big problems IMO.
(a) A ton of footguns that an agent can and will miss on occasion, and as we manually review less and less code, we will also miss it, and
(b) security on the web has become increasingly important due to hostile AI agents, and while rails has great secure conventions (see (a)), it's still easier to screw up something and not catch it until after it's deployed because there are simply less guardrails in place (dynamic types, no compile, slow tests, generally bad performance profile).
Rails dev here, still using it, still plan on using it, use agents, don't see them making food gun decisions with rails apis just code.
Rails comes with the console by default, so production inspection of a bug is something the ai can do without a ton of bs to be set up, and that console can be forced to be auditable (using standard gems) or read only (using flags).
I used to love rust, still do sorta, but yeah I think this is really not a good argument against a tool that operationally is better at most things at being observed or poked or prodded or tested in production
Not sure if you’re speaking from experience or just being theoretical here. We’re using Rails and it’s been great. Maintenance and upgrades have been a breeze.
All this static vs dynamic stuff doesn’t really matter anymore. AI doesn’t care. You just need to close the feedback loop with tests, linting, a compiler, or whatever else gives it a clear signal.
In my experience, Go. It was designed to be idiot-proof. It's very verbose, not very expressive, compiles fast for quick feedback loops, strict autoformatter, plenty of examples in models' training data.
Rust is used a lot. Elixir/Phoenix comes up often. You’re looking for something statically typed with string guarantees and as FP as possible to make unit testing easier.
Rust for sure. Builds become a problem eventually though. Elixir is much more interesting now that they added types (I think they're doing more with this still?). I quite like Gleam from a human (non-agent) perspective.
the only substantive difference I've noticed is between languages with a proof system and those without, where with a proof system is orders of magnitude better for agentic work.
reply