amiantos

a very basic app getting a bunch of undue attention thanks to nostalgia for someone else's IP, classic

We're the silent majority, I'm pretty sure. If you love coding, you probably love technology, and if you love technology, you probably love AI, which is inarguably the most interesting tech advancement in this decade.

The others, who are not like us? They've got other priorities. If you hate coding but you love AI, you're probably into software engineering because of the money, not love of technology. If you love coding and you hate AI, you're probably more committed to some sort of ideology than you are the love of technology. If you hate coding and you hate AI, well, I hope you throw your cellphone into the river and find a nice cabin in the woods somewhere to hide in.

And here, if you post something you later regret, you can't delete it or delete your account, which is pretty questionable on a social network in the modern age. So much for 'the right to be forgotten'.

Blog author seems smart (despite questionable ideas about how much real world users would want to interact with any of his elaborate feature concepts), you hope he's actually just got a bunch of responses cached and you're getting a random one each time from that endpoint... and that freely sent content doesn't actually hit OpenAI's APIs.

When you go to add your own API key into Cursor, you get a warning message that several Cursor features cannot be used if you plug in your own API key. I would totally have done that if not for that message.

I had to do a little digging to respond to this properly.

I was on the "Pro Trial" where you get 150 premium requests and I had very quickly used 34 for them, which admittedly is 22% and not 30%. Their pricing page says that the Free plan includes "Pro two-week trial", but they do not explain that on the pro trial you only get 150 premium requests and that on the real Pro plan you get 500 premium requests. So you're correct to be skeptical, I did not use 30% of 500 requests on the Pro plan. I used 22% of the 150 requests you get on the Trial Pro plan.

And yes, I think the agent mode can burn through credits pretty quickly.

Cursor and Windsurf pricing really turned me off. I prefer Claude Code's direct API costs, because it feels more quantifiable to me cost wise. I can load up Claude Code, implement a feature, and close it, and I get a solid dollar value of how much that cost me. It makes it easier for me to mentally write off the low cost of wasteful requests when the AI gets something wrong or starts to spin its wheels.

With Cursor/Windsurf, you make requests, your allowed credit quantity ticks down (which creates anxiety about running out), and you're trying to do some mental math to figure out how those requests that actually cost you. It feels like a method to obfuscate the real cost to the user and also create an incentive for the user to not use the product very much because of the rapidly approaching limits during a focus/flow coding session. I spent about an hour using Cursor Pro and had used up over 30% of my monthly credits on something relatively small, which made me realize their $20/mo plan likely was not going to meet my needs and how much it would really cost me seemed like an unanswerable question.

I just don't like it as a customer and it makes me very suspicious of the business model as a result. I spent about $50 on a week with Claude Code, and could easily spend more I bet. The idea that Cursor and Windsurf are suggesting a $20/mo plan could be a good fit for someone like me, in the face of that $50 in one week figure, further illustrates that there is something that doesn't quite match up with these 'credit' based billing systems.

Very weird 'article'. Apple has to provide the ability for app developers to lock their applications away from certain regions and countries where it may not be legal to provide the app or service. Whether the insurance company is using that functionality properly is not up to Apple.

• The insurance company decided their information can only be accessed via an app, not Apple.

• The insurance company decided their app should be region locked to UAE, not Apple.

It seems like HN bait to turn this into an opportunity for an anti-Apple rant. Anyone who from the US travels abroad frequently will discover quickly that their banking apps are region locked, via the network, and you often have to use a VPN that looks like you are back home in the US to be able to access their apps or services. Apple has nothing to do with any of this. It doesn't matter if you're on iPhone or Android, it's network level.

It's fine to be against this practice, but turning it into something directed to a single company as if it is their responsibility entirely is just... well, at worst, it doesn't seem honest, at best, it seems naive or ignorant.

I used 30% of my monthly allotment of requests in Cursor in just 1 hour of having it help me with a relatively mundane refactoring project. Part of the problem with $20 with usage limits is the anxiety it gives me about using up my monthly allotment, and it makes me reflect on the utility of every request I am sending to their servers. Combine that with the hand-holding, the minute guidance needed for good results, and it just isn't a good feeling.

This feels like a bandaid on a gaping wound to me. Maybe you're making certain aspects of using Cursor/Copilot Agent Mode less annoying, but they're still there and still annoying.

In the parts of the open source LLM community that are interested in roleplay chat, the veterans seem to have the viewpoint that spending a lot of time tinkering to try to overcome the inherent flaws in this technology is relatively pointless; at a certain point, it's random, and the technology just isn't that great, you're expecting too much. Just wait for the next great model. But don't waste your time putting bandaids all over the huge flaws in the technology, you're still not going to get the results you want consistently.

I can't help but think of that here. I don't want to spend my time managing a junior engineer with amnesia, writing Rules files for it to follow, come on now. We're supposed to pay $20/mo with usage limits for that? The promise of "vibe coding" according to all the breathless media coverage and hype is that it'll supercharge me 100x. No one said anything about "Cursor rules files"!

I'll stick with Copilot's "fancy auto-complete", that does speed me up quite a bit. My forays into Agent mode and Cursor left me feeling pretty annoyed, and, like I said, I don't want a junior developer I'm managing through a chat sidebar, I'll just do the programming myself. Get back to me when Cursor is at senior or principal engineer level.

If Dick and Lem were around these days, Dick would have a very vocal online following that would all insist that Dick is correct and claim that Lem is most definitely a government psyop and anyone who says otherwise is just brainwashed by the mainstream media.

I agree with the other commenters, this post does not explain why you would not just run Ollama or Koboldcpp on Windows. What exactly makes running Ollama within virtualized NixOS in WSL in some way better than running natively?

If it's just the novelty aspect of it or some idealogical reason, that's fine, but it should be explained in the blog post before someone thinks this is a sane and logical way to run Ollama on a gaming PC.

Your statement appears to be composed almost entirely of vague and ambiguous statements.

"AI bubble seems close to collapsing" in response to an article about AI being used as a study aid. Does not seem relevant to the actual content of the post at all, and you do not provide any proof or explanation for this statement.

"God knows how many billions have been invested", I am pretty sure it's actually not that difficult to figure out how much investor money has been poured into AI, and this still seems totally irrelevant to a blog post about AI being used as a study aid. Humans 'pour' billions of dollars into all sorts of things, some of which don't work out. What's the suggestion here, that all the money was wasted? Do you have evidence of that?

"We still don't have an actual use case for AI which is good for humanity"... What? We have a lot of use cases for AI, some of which are good for humanity. Like, perhaps, as a study aid.

Are you just typing random sentences into the HN comment box every time you are triggered by the mention of AI? Your post is nonsense.

I mean, ideally, management should not be telling me anything and should let me do my job in splendid, peaceful isolation. In practice, however, management tells me how to do all sorts of things, all the time, and they're responsible for me continuing to get paid, so I have to listen.

if you are an apple ecosystem app developer, apple already has an awful lot of information about you. you've paid them $100 every year, you pay them at least a 15% cut of every sale. they know your personal address one way or another, and your tax information. you most likely use their IDE, their APIs / development kit, which either they provide or you are paying for as part of our $100 developer fee, depending on your perspective. to get an app on any official Apple App Store you have to submit your app to them to notarize and get it reviewed for approval. you probably use an iPhone, essentially must use a Mac, and have a robust billing history in their stores.

so I'm not sure I totally understand the underlying message here, that apple is possibly phoning home to App Store Connect to secretly record every time a developer launches a project? it sounds a bit strangely conspiratorial in the context of a system where apple controls the entire developer supply chain already. anyway, I understand this is just one of those things that some people decide to care a lot about, and in some cases it makes a lot of sense, but not this one.

It is comical to me how fast the anti-RIAA internet turned into a bunch of copyright maximalists who expect organizations like the RIAA to protect them in some way. In actuality, if someone manages to weaponize copyright against AI, it will only successfully be used by massive rights holders to extract payouts from AI companies and none of the money will be given to any of the creatives, and creatives will naturally still not be very happy about it. Spotify 1.0 is right holders streaming your content and paying you fractions of pennies for it, "Spotify 2.0" will be them licensing your content to AI companies and paying you a fraction of a fraction of a penny just once.

That's cute, I'm going to put that at the start of any creative work I make so that anyone who sees it owes me a license to everything they ever made afterward because a nugget of their life experience legally belongs to me now and all their creative works are now tainted by that.

Under this mentality, every search engine index would be shut down.

I think to make that argument you would need evidence that someone prompted ChatGPT to reword/misquote info directly from your blog, at which point the argument would be that that person is rewording/misquoting info directly from your blog, not ChatGPT.

I'm with you. If I am at a bar and I see a sign that says "PBR - $3", I don't think of that as an advertisement. This user opted into Meta AI and (perhaps 'unknowingly' as no one reads the terms) gave their consent for this to happen, so I think 'hysteria' is appropriate and it's clear to me that here in the comments, opinions about this are based on feelings and not facts, and for that reason, it has to be described in misleading ways.

I, too, have "used Meta AI", and have not had this happen to me. But I did not use Meta AI to generate pictures of me, so I did not check the box that led to this. That is one of the number of ways the way this post is titled in a way that is misleading. Simply "using Meta AI" in any capacity did not lead to this outcome.

Additionally, the title suggests that the user gave his photos to Meta AI, and then a separate service, Instagram, is using his photos. That's not what is happening, he gave his photos to Meta AI (likely inside Instagram) and then Meta AI is using them (inside Instagram). There's no need to pretend two different services are sharing their photos around, but the post title is more engaging if there's the suggestion otherwise.

Doesn't seem any different to me than when Netflix started making original content, or as others have said, Target having their own in-house brands that they stock alongside everything else. It's just good business sense. If the product is bad, people will stop using Spotify, and Spotify will stop doing it.

I'm not sure why discourse around this seems to be coming from the perspective that people have no choice but to use Spotify and that Spotify will secretly replace all the good music with bad music and no one will be able to do anything about it, all musicians will be out of work, all will be lost. Spotify is just one music service, and we don't even need to use a music service to enjoy the music we like. If Spotify destroys itself with slop music, what's the sinister plot, the "ugly truth", really?

If Spotify does this, and a majority of people do not care, do not notice, and keep using Spotify until label-owned music is totally irrelevant, I think it would be more interesting if the musicians who are put out of work by this consider why their high quality music lost out to such mass produced "garbage"...

Why?

How many checklist 'apps' have AI in them? That you couldn't find one without it? Or is it just a marketing thing now to say "no-AI" to bank on the anti-AI movement in tech?

What you describe in your last paragraph is still an evolution, not an extinction or disappearance. Fan/stan culture is absolutely huge on social media, where it has thrived, with single-person-ran stan accounts becoming as big or bigger than the heyday of blogging or fansites. So I just think we disagree on some foundational level.

I publish my content "for free" because I want to spread knowledge and information, or promote a topic or interest I enjoy, and monetization has never been a priority for me. I know that I am not alone. The urge to create does not depend on a need for money. I am happy for my websites to be picked up by Perplexity or ChatGPT because I want more people to see/learn/hear about the things I care about.

If someone only creates for money, only publishes on the web to get people to look at advertisements, well... I think there are plenty of other people who don't feel that way that will fill the void left behind in their departure.

To me it seems weird so many people think the internet only exists because advertising props it up. The internet existed and was a wonderful place before advertising became widespread, and most services and websites will continue to exist after advertising is gone (if that ever happens). What encourages people to believe in some sort of great collapse?

They make a glass aeropress that comes with a stainless steel cap now.

> Ideally I would like to have git available on iPhone and Apple tablets

I'd like to introduce you to Working Copy

- https://apps.apple.com/us/app/working-copy-git-client/id8966... - https://workingcopy.app

I have an LG OLED C1 65" and the Vision Pro movie experience is nearly the same as the TV, except that you have to deal with all the lens glare in the Vision Pro, which is a big downside. An upside is that films like Encanto are in 3D, which looks really good for Pixar/CGI movies and pretty garbage for every other movie I've tried in the headset (for me, real films with 3D look like paper cut outs layered over each other and it's very distracting and looks lame).

But a nice 65" OLED TV is still cheaper than a Vision Pro, so I can't recommend it unless you are in a situation where you literally cannot put a big OLED TV in your space, or you're desperate to take your OLED TV with you on flights.

I also have a Quest 3 and without OLED for true HDR, it loses right away, and then it loses further on resolution. Audio quality is really good on Quest 3, but... If I really wanted to use a headset to watch a movie, I would use the Vision Pro, hands down. If I only had the Quest 3 on hand, I wouldn't watch a movie.

It's fun to read so many people who can't see past their own nose, who declare the scenario contrived and the solution over-engineered, despite having no frame of reference for the need of this button and thus having no ability to properly dogfood the feature, speaking so confidently from their ignorance. Great HN thread.

They're my files in Google Drive. If I've made the choice to buy a product from Panic, and I trust Panic as a company personally, it should be my right to decide to give Panic access to my files in Google Drive. It is not up to Google to shuffle money into the pockets of their security partners under the guise of doing it for my safety. My safety and the safety of my files is my responsibility, not Google's, and it's oddly convenient from a monetary perspective (both for Google itself and their partners) for Google to suddenly care a lot more about this than they used to, so it does not seem particularly altruistic in any way.