kentm

How you try to make money off an invention may be perfectly reasonable, or it may be perfectly unreasonable. The "how" matters here.

Looking at the numbers there though, both Anthropic and Deepseek increased in terms of absolute usage numbers since the start of the year. And thats setting aside the high potential for sampling bias.

> ... think that this brings in a higher level of performance.

Sure, but how are you measuring this?

What are you using to host Qwen Flash Next right now?

Kind of funny title since I didn’t think UUIDv7 had any of the properties being disputed here. The reason to use UUIDv7 is because it reduces the space over which the UUID can cover at a given time, which improves write clustering. They don’t need to be strictly ordered for this, just “good enough”.

I hope to god no one is actually using the timestamp portion to replace an “updated at” timestamp but I suspect I’ll be disappointed.

Basically, New Zealand, which is why it was a favorite for billionaire bunkers.

I will not believe this until every frontier AI lab socializes a significant portion of their “profit” (subject to making a profit). I’m not talking about “Every kid with a Trump account gets a single share of SPCX”. I’m talking about “50+ percent of the shares are in a trust that distributes regular dividends to every US adult”. I’ll even be nice and allow those shares to be non-voting.

Until then it’s all talk.

The problem is that such a line doesn’t exist, because they’re always looking for ways to increase profit for shareholders. On day X, they’ll be fine offering you an ad free sub, but on day X+Y there will be a meeting where they discuss what they can do to improve their revenue numbers and someone will suggest adding just a few ads to the ad-free tier.

This is why people go scorched earth with adblockers. There’s a lot of discussion about “good” ad networks being allowlisted, but they are all just one missed earnings report away from implementing dark patterns. None of them are trustworthy.

> Like first of all I would call a person who tries to pass the checks and balances of a democracy, even if they fail, the target of the ideals or “no kings”

Its incredibly frustrating to talk to people that take the position of "Well eventually they gave up after pressure from the courts and legislature, so no harm no foul." There's a difference between doing things that have a reasonable legal basis that the courts disagree with and what much of this administration was doing -- sometimes fragrantly ignoring court orders until D politicians got involved to pressure compliance.

Using the 2020 coup attempt as an example, yes, the courts shot down his attempts. The issue is that *he even tried* -- the attempt was transparently not good-faith concern about election integrity.

Those are different statements than "AI is terrible because everyone hates using it" though.

I wouldn't say I've seen that specific argument. But insomuch as people say that, yes, its not a valid argument.

> And there's such little empathy out there for anyone going through it like me. AI is here now loser, keep up, get on board or get replaced.

I think that this really needs to be internalized by a lot of people. I really appreciated when my boss sat our team down and said "Yeah this is the new normal, and I know its not what you signed up for. Its fine to feel sad that your job is changing in such a dramatic way." No, it didn't help anyone actually adjust, but sometimes you just need someone to empathize and tell you its OK to feel bad about this when everyone around you is excited.

> If you read this far thanks. And if anyone has any advice for me, how to go from "thinking through problems by coding your way through them" to "doing the thinking upfront" then really, I'm all ears.

I'm trying to replace it with "thinking through with AI" to limited success. A lot of people recommend having the AI "plan" the thing and review the plan, which is OK. I've also had it do a prototype and poked around a bit, summarized the learnings, and then did it again in an iterative manner without rough edges I've found. Whether you are given the space to do that is up to your org -- its hard sell to "do it again" but I've found that the second attempt leads to better results since I can prompt my way around the problems. Sometimes this also leads to a "Not even wrong" moment where I found out that I framed the problem wrong and the AI dutifully carried out doing the wrong thing.

Work always comes with bullshit. Its the nature of the thing. I don't think anyone was really getting code golf-style experiences at work, but they likely had enough positives that they outweighed the negatives, which resulted in net "enjoying" work. For a lot of people, AI removed a lot of the positives and left a lot of negatives, and some are still coping with that in one way or another.

'love typing special characters into a computer' is not just a strawman, its rude and dismissive.

Well, I can't speak for the person above, but in my case typing out the code is part of solving the problem. Plenty of times I've thought I had a great idea in my head, and then in the process of writing it out found better understanding and an even better approach. Some of that can still be emulated with LLMs -- you can read the output and have it tweak things where you find oddities, but its still not really the same, and I miss having that process of discovery and improvement.

I phrased it fine. No-one knows your intentions. If you don't think it comes off as insulting then feel free to disregard, but I (and others, apparently) think it does.

Thank you for a great, empathetic comment.

I recommended, not demanded.

While interests have a wide variety of norms, communication has a much smaller space of shared norms, and "strange" implies a negative value judgement in most of them. I'm comfortable with my comment.

I feel that the fact that people feel the need to pile on people who enjoy writing code is a problematic trend on HN, whereas telling them to maybe consider other peoples' priorities and preferences is not. The paradox of tolerance is apt here.

> How strange.

People enjoy different things. Its not strange. Treating it as strange is kinda insulting, so I'd recommend that you rethink how you phrase this.

Its nice to see someone with this opinion. Im not a prolific user of the Epic Game Store, but when people go on about all the missing features its mostly a lot of cruft that I really don't want. Game ratings/reviews and the "join a game" friend functionality are the only things that I would miss, at a glance, and reviews are mostly covered elsewhere.

As an aside I really wish people would stop naming their new software projects “Spark” given how many things already use that name.

As far as I can tell this doesn't need congressional approval as the guidelines are not set by statute. The DoL could change these rules tomorrow.

Fair. I think there's a discussion to be had on whether it should be a lottery, but I don't think that discussion is feasible in the current political zeitgeist.

I'm more speaking to the point that the options are "newspaper or professional journals" in the-year-of-our-lord 2026. Job sites are under a section that gives a pool of other options of which the employer must pick three. Those requirements should be flipped (job sites are the requirement, newspaper and journals are one of the extra options) if the DoL wasn't asleep at the wheel.

Edit: And thats not a R vs D thing. The requirements have been this way under multiple administrations, and newspapers have not been a primary way of sourcing candidates for two decades.

> They flood the H1B lottery, crowding out (imo) more deserving high-skill folks.

I really wish this was quantifiable in some way -- I have no way to tell if this statement is accurate.

I've worked with some very skilled H1B that definitely deserved to be here. If companies like Infosys or Cognizant are taking "slots" that could be filled by people like those H1Bs, then I'd consider that a big problem. Companies like these are not doing "highly skilled" work.

Edit: I kinda wonder if the "highly skilled" value judgement is a holdover from the era where people thought you were a genius if you touched a computer.

Yeah, I believe these are the requirements for PERM: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-656/sub...

They are wildly out of date compared to how jobs are actually filled. Regardless of any other enforcement actions, this needs to be fixed.

I don't think it even needs congressional approval to change these. The DoL could do it.

Just because they are high doesn't mean they are high as they should be. Big tech companies were pulled into lawsuits several times over wage suppression tactics and ended up settling.

Not Analemma_ but I'll give my two cents.

In my mind the issue isn't that it was crafted by AI, but that it wasn't crafted with the intention of getting the point across in a way that respects the reader's time or energy. The result is often needlessly wordy with information buried in a sea of flourish. This might be forgivable if the author had a certain entertaining style, but LLMs are aggressively mediocre by their nature, making wading through it painful.

Its certainly possible to get an LLM to write concise prose but thats not how most people are using them. We can talk all day on HN about the ideal LLM user that is conscientious, reviews the output, puts time and effort into stylistic concerns, etc. But none of that actually matters because thats not what people are doing; the entire reason they're using an LLM in the first place is so that they don't have to do that.

> If you want to know why big, progressive cities have the most unaffordable housing, look no further than this law.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. I'd want to see evidence that things like this actually move the needle on rent vs things like available housing stock, zoning, etc which seem much more likely to actually impact affordability.

No, because the issue is navigating legal agreements with your vendors, not the ease of deploying. With AWS Marketplace you are making a new legal agreement with the vendor of the product, not with Amazon.