jacobsimon

I think “about Apple” was the operative part. For example, if you know that Nokia had a bad quarter, then perhaps you might infer that Apple had a good one. I believe this is also illegal but obviously harder to prove.

Chill I’m just giving you the history of why there is no housing at that intersection. I don’t know about your bill, I moved away out of SF in 2023.

They’ve been trying to build housing there for a decade and it keeps getting blocked. https://sfist.com/2023/12/06/former-monster-in-the-mission-n...

You can define it however you like, but my point was that all of the following appear to be increasing:

* the number of people creating software

* the number of people who are educated in creating software

* the number of people who are paid to create software

No true Scotsman uses AI? :)

Jokes aside, I think you’re valid but if you take the macro view, it’s clear that there are now more people doing some form of engineering, the same way the digital camera led to more people doing photography, and so on.

I think we can make separate distinctions around the act of consuming vs creating—a lot of vibe coding is beginning to look more like “consuming software” but that’s not what I was intending to describe here.

Good point!

I think it probably just boils down to whether the word is functionally necessary to understand the meaning of the sentence and how the language evolved...

For example, in French you don't usually pronounce the "s" at the end of a plural noun and lots of singular nouns end in "s", so the articles become necessary for determining if you mean plural or singular. In English you pronounce the "s" clearly and very few singular words end in "s", so you just don't need the article to distinguish anything, it becomes functionally redundant.

I can’t speak about other languages but in my head the simplest reason is that English “a/an” specifies “one”, eg “I have a cat and two dogs.” I googled and confirmed a/an is Old English for “one” but otherwise they didn’t use articles. I assume it’s a similar origin story for other languages like “un/una/une”. In that case, it’s equally strange that other languages would make “one” plural imo.

Yet other people claim to not have an internal monologue (including my wife and brother) and say they don’t hear anything when they think to themselves, and don’t really even “think” in words for that matter. So this comparison is also tricky because not everyone agrees on either of them. I have a weak visualization ability and strong internal monologue, I’m not sure if they’re correlated in some way or not.

The number is wrong / the citation is misleading. It’s closer to 20-30% according to that study, the 79% is referring specifically to cases involving social media, of which Meta platforms are obviously going to make up a large percentage.

There’s also a reporting bias here I’m sure - if Meta is better at reporting these cases then they will become a larger percentage, etc.

1. Parental control features on phones and computers

2. Grassroots marketing about potential risks of social media

3. Maybe better parental consent via existing regulations like COPPA

It’s just an incredibly different statement. It’s like saying 79% of Americans voted for Trump vs 79% of registered Republicans voted for Trump, they lead to very different conclusions.

I’m not saying it’s easy for teens to stop using social media, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like it should require intervention by the US government to do so. There are many other ways to go about social change.

Yeah that’s a good counterpoint. I guess it hinges on whether you can define a clear boundary around what is harmful or unharmful social media.

Like to me “online shopping addiction” is probably a more realistic and analogous problem to gambling, so maybe online advertising to teens could be regulated, but the jump to child abuse is so far outside Meta’s actual business model that it feels over-reaching to go there.

I should say market share of social media* updated lol

Not trying to defend Meta at all here, but this report is also lying.

For example, it says "79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms." But the source it cites actually says 79% of online social media cases occurred on Facebook and Instagram. So this stat is probably just a reflection of Meta's market share of social media.

> Facebook causes harm, disproportionately so for younger people

I think I disagree with this step. Facebook causes a kind of indirect harm here, and is used willingly by teens and parents, who could simply choose not to use it. That's different from, say, a factory polluting a river with toxic chemicals, which needs government regulation. Basically "negative externalities".

Curious, let me know if you find anything about it! That does sort of explain why the brain areas would be locally flipped, but maybe doesn’t explain the global flip (right body -> left brain) that the original article is talking about.

Fair enough - so in reality they _are_ being pressured directly to remove the content and it has nothing to do with selling the products. A slippery slope indeed!

Maybe a silly idea, but here’s a solution to prevent financial censorship: make the game free. Or monetize via another way—ads, subscriptions, credits. There’s actually a lot of options for Steam if they aren’t being pressured directly to remove the content.

Had the same initial reaction - have we come full circle to Bootstrap 20 years later?

But after playing around with their theme builder[1], I think there's real value here - you can quickly spin up a custom-ish set of Tailwind components. I'd rather it output an actual component library though more like shadcn.

[1] https://daisyui.com/theme-generator

Nice work! I really like how simple it was to get started. I know this would make it a bit harder to signup, but I think you should consider creating a Chrome Extension that allows you to get the real mouse coordinates, if possible. I think the animations feel a bit rougher compared to ScreenStudio, so maybe having the real coordinates would help. But maybe that's fixable with more smoothing or easing.

Quality has improved so much too, I tried it a few months ago at Demo Day and I’m blown away by how good it is now.

Seems to work fine on iOS Safari and Chrome

Honestly, I think Apple played their cards perfectly. They didn’t try to be first to market with R&D, but they’ve launched just enough features to excite customers about new phones, while appeasing investors and subduing potential competitors like OpenAI who are rumored to be working on hardware devices, too.

Hah I’ve been having the same issue as the author with those scammy “package delay” texts getting summarized in my notifications.

Didn’t realize how widespread that type of spam was until now. Why hasn’t someone implemented better spam detection at Apple like we have for email? It would be nice if they could classify texts as spam, promotions, etc and organize them the way Gmail does.

There’s nothing grammatically offensive about this. It’s like saying, “Cars come in all colors. Mine is red.”

I’d be surprised if they’re not using AI or some sort of rule-based generator at this point.

Well one key difference is that Google and Amazon are cloud operators, they will still benefit from selling the compute that open source models run on.

Oh great to hear, thanks for the kind words :)

I think the implication of the top comment is that cloud providers are buying revenue. When we say that cloud provider revenue is "up due to AI", a large part of that growth may be their own money coming back to them through these investments. Nvidia has been doing the same thing, by loaning data centers money to buy their chips. Essentially these companies are loaning each other huge sums of money and representing the resulting income as revenue rather than loan repayments.

To be clear, it's not to say that AI itself is a scam, but that the finance departments are kind of misrepresenting the revenue on their balance sheets and that may be security fraud.