Trying to silence someone (“You should have..not commented”) is pretty rude.
Seems like the same old story. Rude people defending other rude people so that they can collectively continue to justify their own rudeness. Usually with arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny. And usually using a fresh account.
I fondly remember getting so stuck in Day of the Tentacle or Grim Fandango not just for days but even giving up for weeks before coming back with fresh motivation! This is the sort of challenge that’s actually rewarding when you manage to solve it (unlike being held by the hand the entire game).
I wonder how the industry has not yet learned to use ASD-STE100 Simple Technical English for documentation. It makes it so much more polished and so much less AI-sloppy.
Not an advert. I wish we ran example.com. However, we run a few other services.
The issue with example.com is this statement:
> This domain is for use in documentation examples without needing permission. This is not a service; avoid relying on it for testing and monitoring purposes.
The problem is that, disclaimer or not, if a website provides a useful utility, people will use it as a service.
If example.com breaks, IANA can reasonably say it was never intended to be stable. But that does not change the fact that people will use it for testing and monitoring.
What we do is adopt legacy services whose maintainers can no longer afford, want, or have the resources to maintain them, and invest in keeping them running reliably.
Personally (apparently like you) I didn’t have any desire to re-play the game, but boy was that first play-through enjoyable! They really did well in making you feel the intended vibe with the visuals, sound effects, bits of dialogue etc
Same experience here. Amazing first run, but it's not really a city-builder you replay constantly, it's more of a solved puzzle game once you finish the run. Definitely worth playing though.
I'm surprised it doesn't annoy the author. I use LLMs extensively for code but I cannot stand their natural language output a lot of the time, it always reminds me of that example from Orwell's Politics and the English Language:
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
> I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern [1946] English:
> Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
A 2026 version of this phenomenon would instead be:
> Here's the thing: success isn't just about talent — it's about timing. The fastest runner doesn't always win. The strongest army doesn't always prevail. Ultimately, life is a complex interplay of skill and chance, and recognizing that can be both humbling and empowering.
That's actually Claude and you can see precisely why the resulting vague language is bad; the LLM has changed the actual meaning of the passage from a sober reflection on the futility of expecting natural justice from the universe to one that emphasises skill and timing, exactly what the author is telling us is futile.
Admittedly the slop text LLMs produce in the 21st century isn't the same as the 20th century slop humans produced, but there's definitely a family resemblance in my view! Orwell was concerned with the idea language can be used to curtail thought, and he disliked what we'd now call slop because it merely gestures at a thought without actually instantiating it directly.
The whole essay is worth a read in my view, it remains highly relevant.
> My mistake was trying to combine .tar.gz files using cat. gzip plays ball, but tar throws a strop.
> gzip happily combines the compressed members into a single stream, but when tar tries to read the decompressed stream, it finds the first archive’s EOF marker and stops reading.
> gzip would be happy to carry on, but tar has given up.
There was no reason to say this three times consecutively. But when an AI wrote the blog post for you then this is the level of quality HN readers have to put up with.
Seems like the same old story. Rude people defending other rude people so that they can collectively continue to justify their own rudeness. Usually with arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny. And usually using a fresh account.