chromacity

Your response is even more misleading than the misconception you're trying to correct. The complexes formed in (charged) lithium batteries are unstable and reactive in ways quite similar to the base metal. The salt molecule, in contrast, is pretty unreactive. Salt shakers don't catch fire if dropped.

There's some comedy in this article having all the hallmarks of LLM writing.

> Which is all fine and dandy. But why play the "You simply don't understand it as well as I do"

I'll say this from the perspective of a person who publishes content online: because people's revealed preference is for content written this way. You can spend weeks polishing thoughtful, original content that will get few clicks, or you can crank out throwaway op-eds about AI and get thousands of likes and upvotes from people who just wanted to hear their own beliefs explained back to them.

My stuff appeared on HN a couple of times over the years and the less effort I put into it, the better it fared. The temptation to change your writing style and to offer increasingly more provocative and shallow opinions is difficult to resist.

My point is probably this: if you want to see better stuff, I think you gotta stop engaging with articles like this. Patrol /newest and upvote cool in-depth stuff.

> and then the machines run directly from one leg to neutral (230v)

And then every machine has a switching power supply to convert this to low-voltage DC, and then probably random point-of-load converters in various places (DC -> AC -> DC again) for stuff like the CPU / GPU core, RAM, etc. Each of these stages may be ~95% efficient with optimal load, but the losses add up, and get a lot worse outside a narrow envelope.

They are trained and evaluated on correctness benchmarks. But correctness on benchmark questions is only loosely coupled to correctness outside the benchmark, in part because LLMs aren't grounded to the same biological reality as humans. You can't easily convince an average person to cut off their own hand and this has little to do with higher-level thought. In contrast, it only takes a bit of creativity to convince an LLM to say or do almost anything.

> The thing that didn't make sense with this app: who would ever want to scroll only AI generated videos over a combined feed?

It's not an exaggeration to say that this is how millions of people use Facebook. It might be not how most HNers use it, but create a new account and you will be absolutely funneled toward prolific producers of video-based AI slop.

But the problem is that FB and Tiktok (and to a smaller extent, YT Shorts) have cornered the AI video doom scroll market, and no one really seemed to be inclined to use Sora and related models for anything more creative. Which probably made it not worth subsidizing.

> If you showed someone what our computers can do with the latest LLMs now to someone 5 years ago they would probably say it sure looks a lot like AGI.

But this is a CPU! It's not a GPU / TPU. Even if you think we've achieved AGI, this is not where the matrix multiplication magic happens. It's pure marketing hype.

> Claude Code was released for general use in May 2025. It's only March.

Detractors of AI are often accused of moving the goalposts, but I think your comment is guilty of the same. Before Claude Code, we had Cursor, Github Copilot, and more. Each of these was purportedly revolutionizing software engineering.

Further, the core claim for AI coding is that it lets you ship code 10x or 100x faster. So why do we need to wait years to see the result? Shouldn't there be an explosion in every type of software imaginable?

> I think this article is making a pretty big assumption: that people making things with AI are also going to be publishing them. And that's just the opposite of what should be expected, for the general case.

The premise is that AI has already fundamentally changed the nature of software engineering. Not some specific, personal use case, but that everything has changed and that if you're not embracing these tools, you'll perish. In light of this, I don't think your rebuttal works. We should be seeing evidence of meaningful AI contributions all over the place.

Come on. This article isn't about the joys of doing things the hard way. To quote: "Then, at the start of 2022 I got my first analogue film camera: a Leica M6. (I know... I dived straight in the deep end.) This was my first introduction to how editing could be easier."

It isn't easier. Film is pain. Pain can be good, but this is selling a mirage.

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps.

It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VHS filters on social media, etc. I think it's more about signaling some cultural identity than any objective benefits of the "retro" process. It's not like digital cameras make you give up creative control. If you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots, you can do that with digital too.

That said, I agree with one thing: you shouldn't be paying for an Adobe subscription. Use Darktable, Capture One, or some other equivalent that you're not just renting for life.

You're kidding, but it could be true? Many areas of mathematics are, first and foremost, incredibly esoteric and inaccessible (even to other mathematicians). For this one, the author stated that there might be 5-10 people who have ever made any effort to solve it. Further, the author believed it's a solvable problem if you're qualified and grind for a bit.

In software engineering, if only 5-10 people in the world have ever toyed with an idea for a specific program, it wouldn't be surprising that the implementation doesn't exist, almost independent of complexity. There's a lot of software I haven't finished simply because I wasn't all that motivated and got distracted by something else.

Of course, it's still miraculous that we have a system that can crank out code / solve math in this way.

I don't think that follows. There's not a single large organization - private business or a government - that can claim to be 100% hacker-proof. A lot of "cyber" problems are also people problems: humans make mistakes, deliberately circumvent policies and security mechanisms to "get stuff done", can be coerced or bribed. That doesn't mean they are incompetent, just that defense is never perfect.

Making criminals' lives more complicated is a good strategy. Corporate vigilantism, I don't know.

It could be that it's confused about the expression "geschniegelt und geschniegelt"... no, wait, that's not right... the phrase is: "geschniegelt und geschniegelt"... okay, that's not quite right, the final answer is: "geschniegelt und geschniegelt"... no, hold on

> Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer?

I hate to say this, but how about... not drinking and driving? Drunk driving is a massive problem in the US and accounts for a good proportion of all driving fatalities. And your attitude sounds precisely like what causes this issue: unless the penalties are painful, people keep trying their luck in hopes of blowing "exactly the limit".

I have zero love for OF, but shouldn't your reasoning also apply to Patreon, Gofundme, and so on? They all let you collect small fees for completely unverifiable services.

> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.

Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.

The prevailing sentiment on HN is that AI will make coders 10x more productive, but that we'll all keep our jobs and salaries, with the possible exception of people who don't embrace AI quickly enough.

But let me ask you this: has AI made life easier for illustrators, book authors, or musicians? They were affected by the technology earlier on. If they don't embrace AI, they face increased competition from cheaply-made products that the average consumer can't distinguish from the "real" thing. But if they embrace it, they can't differentiate themselves from the cheaply-produced content! In fact, for artists, the best strategy may be to speak out very vocally against AI, reject it early on, and build a following of like-minded consumers.

It's not either-or. Companies care about security because of the consequences. If you're a big company contracting a small one, you don't want to get owned through that vendor because you know you'll be the one holding the bag (data loss, reputational damage, regulatory scrutiny, lawsuits).

Small vendors will tell you what you want to hear because they're desperate for your business. Independent auditing is, in theory, a way to get closer to the ground truth. Well, in theory.

"You" probably don't, but it's not just "you". There's also the counterparty who's asking to see that report. Maybe they're doing it for paper-pushing purposes of their own, but ultimately, somewhere up the chain, there's someone thinking "I can't personally audit all my suppliers, and I can't be sure they're doing the right thing, so I'm going to ask them to get an independent audit".

Of course, this shows that the entire system is a bit of a charade, but the point is that someone cares and they're gonna be annoyed when they find out that the audit appears to be a sham.

Whether they have a good alternative is a separate question. But here's another way to look at it: if we show blatant disregard for self-regulation, the government is eventually going to show up and come up with more onerous rules.

I don't think there was ever a solid use case for graphing calculators in school, at least not in my experience? The curriculum didn't make good use of them and I'm not convinced it could have. There's little value in having every kid in the classroom replicate the same plot of y = sin(x) or whatever on a tiny screen. And other than such demonstrations... what are you gonna do with it? It was never flexible or powerful enough for serious math. You weren't going to run circuit or physics simulations on a TI-89.

There are other features that can be useful - scientific notation, symbolic solver, unit conversions, etc - but graphing as such always seemed like a gimmick.

I think it's more of a not-entirely-rational appeal to parents: "if my kid has a top-notch calculator for high school / college, maybe they're gonna be better at math". And kids did not object, but in the end, mostly just sideloaded games and horsed around.

I agree with the broader point, but I'm perplexed that the author is talking about dogfooding as a "sacred practice in the tech industry" in the context of customer support. Among big tech companies, customer support usually isn't seen a part of the product. If you work at Facebook, Google, or Microsoft, you don't try to go through the non-existent consumer support channels to resolve issues with your account.

I think this is a bit facetious. Although software had a bunch of localized impacts, it killed only a handful of mainstream professions. People still had to typeset articles, there was just less lead involved. For a writer, switching from a typewriter to a keyboard didn't mean you somehow needed less skill to write.

That said, I'm with you that it's tacky for software engineers to complain about their own hardships. We are some of the wealthiest and most pampered white collar workers out there, and we're not exactly innocent bystanders.

It's a labor of love and a great reference to go back to, but I wouldn't recommend it for newcomers.

Traditional books benefit from having an editor who (ideally) asks questions like "who are you writing for", "what's the best order to introduce ideas", and "how much detail is enough". If you don't ask these questions, you often end up getting too deep into the weeds or jumping back and forth between ideas in ways that can be difficult to follow. To give you a specific example, the guide spends a lot of time on some of the more obscure theories in DC network analysis before even defining what a battery is, capacitors and inductors are explained in the DC section by focusing on their AC characteristics, there is a ton of unnecessary quantum physics trivia ahead of explaining what a diode is, discussion of op-amps kicks off with an odd reference to calculus, etc.

Again, I don't mean that as a criticism, it's just that (properly edited) books have their merits.