niam

I considered that but I don't see it being very impactful. It presumes a user who cares enough about "their" ChatGPT that they can't move from a particular model provider, but simultaneously does not care enough that model providers themselves have a financial motivation to shoo users onto their newer and more efficient models.

The transition from GPT4 to GPT5 was not well recieved among this crowd -- nevermind that I think this crowd is pretty small (comparatively) to begin with. I just don't imagine you can build a business on that sliver of a sliver, much less one that justifies OpenAI's spending.

It's my understanding that they predate llms, and internet snivel.

I don't discount this as a possibility but my impression is that the OpenAI brand isn't very sticky.

Internet Explorer being pre-installed on Windows devices didn't prevent it from being demolished by newcomer Chrome throughout the 2010s. Now we're looking at a product that's even less integrated, and whose value is exposed through universal interfaces (human language, images, etc.).

If OpenAI succeeds, I imagine that remarkably little of it will have come from the brand. But subtracting the first-mover brand advantage: they can either compete on the frontier, which seems difficult and bears potentially diminishing returns (particularly wrt to distillation); or compete as a commodity, which I imagine cannot justify their valuation/spend.

It seems very uphill of a battle.

The article you're responding to is making specific operational claims about Claude's (basically non-) relevance. I'd be interested to hear if you're directionally correct, but forgive me if I need more details than "but it integrates Claude".

If we're on the subject of tropes: https://theonion.com/report-stating-current-year-still-leadi...

> There's so much unexplored space in licenses [...]

Am I wrong that this is orthogonal to "pick a side"? It sounds like you're suggesting that the sides themselves are inappropriately drawn.

I didn't consider that bundling Search & Assistant maybe puts them in a tricky spot among some users who revile LLM features, and others who will utilize them to the cap. To the degree that the former is subsidizing the latter, or costing them customers (probably not a ton): I can see why separating the two offerings makes sense.

Though I'm sympathetic to the users for whom this would basically be a strict downgrade in featureset.

Wow small world. Hello from a fellow L1 (2012-2016). I didn't realize Ronimo had gone bankrupt, so I suppose I should be glad I have a chance to boot it up again.

The title writer might be doing the project a disservice by using the term "formal" to describe it, given that the project talks a lot about "specs". I mistook it to imply something about formal specification.

My quick understanding is that isn't really trying to utilize any formal specification but is instead trying to more-clearly map the relationship between, say, an individual human-language requirement you have of your application, and the code which implements that requirement.

The Library of Babel comparison is too fatalistic imo, even granting that it's maybe just an extreme example. The real world doesn't quite resemble a closed system with no metadata. We can still establish chains of trust.

Whether or not people will build resilient chains is another story, contingent on whether the strength of that chain actually matters to people. It probably doesn't for a lot of people. Boo. But inasmuch as I care, I feel I ought to be free to try and derive a strong signal through the noise.

I was sympathetic to this line of reasoning but I feel it's repeatedly shown to be self-defeating.

What chance have the proverbial good-guys got if, even after _proving_ some modicum of good will, people will nonetheless condescend any attempt to influence bad/wildcard actors? It feels great to tell someone they 'should've known better' but I'm convinced that that's basically void of cautionary utility.

This seems misleading inasmuch as your correspondents aren't all on the same mail servers.

Yes, correspondence between you and Build-A-Bear, and between you and your local terrorist cell, are unencrypted individually. But Build-A-Bear presumably doesn't know about your correspondence with the cell, and the latter presumably has some interest in not sharing organizational data access with the former.

I suppose you do have to trust that Proton isn't served a directive to snoop on your correspondence in transit with other providers. But that's still a much better position than leaving all of your historical data unencrypted at rest.

That relates more to the public rhetoric surrounding Graphene than with how the OS itself operates imo. It's pretty practical and enables (or allows you to enable) everything that a typical Android does, except where Google Play Integrity checks fail, which is not in Graphene's control (e.g Google Wallet payments).

People bill it as making a ton of usability compromises in the name of security, but that doesn't match my experience. The only redeeming observation is that your phone _does_ lean towards secure-er and ungoogled defaults, which _does_ break functionality that a lot of people expect to "just work" OOTB. But it's trivial to restore it, and the upfront effort getting things to work is amortized over the lifetime of the device. It's maybe an hour's worth of work.

The counterfactual world where users need to forumcrawl how to get to secure/private defaults seems worse to me. By contrast, it's pretty easy to recognize when an app isn't working.

If it saves anyone else the effort: I went to doublecheck the claim that those articles cited the wrong page, and it seems you're correct on The Register, but archive.org's earliest copies of the other two articles don't seem to reference the impostor site. They refer instead to the GitHub.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260301133636/https://www.there... https://web.archive.org/web/20260211162657/https://venturebe... https://web.archive.org/web/20260220201539/https://thenewsta...

So as to not mislead anyone who didn't read the article, the section following your quoted text is:

> Researchers from lower risk countries have been told they could lose access beginning in either September or December if at that point they have been at the lab more than 2 years or, under a waiver, 3 years.

In other words: they're also looking to bar foreign nationals outside of that quoted list, which to my mind is less understandable.

When unstructured human language is the bulk of your interface, it takes effort to contrive any vendor lock-in that doesn't approach zero.

The same doesn't go for traditional, structured software ecosystems, which can afford to coast for a lot longer.

Complex Systems by Patrick McKenzie (patio11). Casual interview format with guests from myriad industries, who try to distill human/technical bits of respective systems. Often it's about tech/finance/govt, or relates to them.

I found it independently of his other work (e.g Bits About Money, or VaccinateCA), which is fitting. The amount of stuff I've read from that guy (including on hn) but did not attribute to a single person seems anomalously high for me. https://www.kalzumeus.com/greatest-hits/

That, and "The Optimal Amount of Fraud is Non-Zero", which is an idiom I paraphrase frequently by this point.

The discussion is probably better started from the question of "why should that data be centralized?" and "why should the government be able to purchase this data, and why are those reasons more compelling than the downsides?".

I have to guess that the folks clamoring to put computer vision "back in the bag" are somewhere on the margins, and resemble straw more than steel.

We don't have many examples of short form video feeds which are divorced from the the TikTok and Reels algorithm -- both of which are aggressively incented to "engage" a user in ways they may not have preferred in the retrospect.

I have no horse in the short-form video race, but I recognize that it has material affects on the world (whether I'd like it or not). Scorn for the principle of an open platform here seems misplaced. It seems too young of a format with too few examples to confidently say it's irredeemable.

> It also does not have an ad blocker

It does have a network-level ad blocker. What it doesn't have is a blocker which modifies/injects Javascript into pages, which iiuc is the main reason that the blocker doesn't help with ads on YouTube much, or pages which employ similar techniques.

> They recommend against using Firefox.

To clarify: they recommend against Firefox Mobile because it didn't support site isolation until last month's v147 updates. I don't know if the goalpost has moved since, but in any case: there's nothing on Graphene that would prevent you from using Firefox.

You'd be pleased to hear, then, that "break free from Google and Apple" is not Graphene's mission statement, because this is a blog.

The irony of that first line might be lost along the wire because I explicitly called it an assumption where the gp did not.

If I were an assuming feller I'd "almost guarantee" that you haven't been blessed/cursed with anything besides Windows 11.

A lot of my beef, personally, can be chalked up to Windows' aggressively long animation times. It's serviceable with them turned off. But even with animations turned off on an aggressively debloated consumer PC there is either a notable delay or a perception thereof in context menus and file explorer that did not exist with Windows 10, or on my Linux machines.

> Why does HN love analogies?

I suppose because they resemble the abstractions that make complex language possible. Another world full of aggressive posturing at tweet-length analogistic musings might have stifled some useful English parlance early.

But I reckon that we shouldn't have called it phishing because emails don't always smell.

> UIs are fundamentally a bunch of state

React doesn't really contest that as-worded. It's just that, ideally, a nested component isn't the owner of important state.

The common denominator is to have shared spaces where it's expected to be among strangers' presence, and for those strangers to eventually become repeat guests in a person's life. That's the maximally comfortable scenario for inducing social behavior and it's responsible for eons of human social history. Think church.

The problem there is that it's the responsibility of groups or society to arrange that. There's not much that a single lonely person can do there.

The less common denominator, that an individual may partake in until society concocts a better solution, is to intentionally visit existing shared spaces even where they otherwise wouldn't (hint: bouldering gyms are good for this because there are repeat faces as well as a social okay-ness to congratulating strangers, or asking how certain challenges can be solved).

Or break with convention, comfort, and perhaps etiquette, and instead just talk to people. Even outside of those spaces. (This is the advice that will piss a lot of people off if it's presented as their only option.) This advice is horrible until it isn't. It does, with enough practice, 'just work'.

---

For an entrepreneur or organizer: it would just go a long way to think about things in terms of allowing conversation to happen unimpeded. Pay attention to where people talk, and about what. Conversations happen a lot in hallways but famously by water coolers, perhaps because it affords people enough time in a shared space to muster the internal capital to start a conversation.

In college I ran a forum for people to meet others and some of the most self-reportedly successful participants just asked questions into the void and were surprised by the number of responses.

Honestly that just seems like normal English.

To refer to something as "team-level" seems so absurdly unspectacular, relative to the other kinds of signals that exist for sussing out AI writing, that I'm surprised it was worthy of mentioning at all.

Perhaps this is a joke but I'd truly love to sic a fleet of asshole AIs on my drafts.

Grant us the ability to reply to bots in a public and timestamped manner so that, if ever a human makes a similarly ridiculous response, we can just point at our response there. It'd free up space in the piece itself that'd otherwise go to asterisks and other preemptions of armchair dweebery.

It fits in nicely imo. It's plausible (services re-appear on hn often enough), and hilarious because it implies the protracted importance of Leetcode.

Though I agree that the LLM perhaps didn't "intend" that.