niam

If the limit of someone's behavior winds up making everyone happier-off, I don't understand why I ought to care. In that sense, calling it "manipulative" seems either inappropriate or not very useful.

At least with something like adultery, there's a pretty obvious ill consequence of someone finding out what's going on behind the scenes. But if I looked behind the curtains of someone like OP and found out that the reason they're so charming is because they thought about people a bunch: I couldn't be burdened to care.

"Money is speech" is kind of a misleading interpretation because it comes with all sorts of baggage that people typically infer from a thing "being speech".

Phrased another way: the argument is that limiting one's ability to spend is practically a limitation on their speech (or their ability to reach an audience, which is an important part of speech). If some president can preclude you from buying billboards, or web servers, or soapboxes on which to stand: he has a pretty strong chokehold on your ability to disseminate a political message.

I'm not defending that argument, only saying what it is as I understand it.

This looks great.

I do yearn for a day though when we're using something like Marimo over Jupyter as a default for these kinds of things. Particularly in GIS where there's more utility in being able to use a notebook-like interface for an executable routine (rather than an analysis or experiment, which is (and should probably remain) the primary use case for Jupyter).

> I think it's to early to call it traditional.

I guess the bigger point is that we could offer the same charity to the OP that I'm lending you here in your use of the wrong "to".

There are meaningful critiques elsewhere in the comments about the piece with some semblance of charitable interpretation. We've elected instead to manufacture a snide, pedestrian haughtiness about wording.

Calling hooks "traditional" in relation to signals seems fine, lest that word be relegated in time to whatever you in particular care about at this juncture.

I'm sure some 80 year olds before us thought the same of us using that term.

I'm not discounting the philosophy, just the language.

I don't mean to sound blithe. If I do, it's not out of indifference but out of active determination that these kinds of terminological boundary disputes quickly veer into pointlessness. They seldom inform us of anything other than how we choose to use words.

I'm not even taking for granted what it means. Can you define it in a way that your neighbor will independently arrive at? It's an incredibly lossy container for whatever meaning that people will want to pack it with, moreso than for other words.

Is a hotdog a simulacrum of a sandwich? Or a fake sandwich? I have no clue and don't care because it doesn't meaningfully inform me of the utility of the thing.

An LLM might be "unintelligent" but I can't model what you think the consequences of that are. I'd skip the formalities and just talk about those instead.

Whether LLMs are "intelligent" seems a wholly uninteresting distinction, resembling the internet ceremony surrounding whether a hotdog is a sandwich.

There's probably very interesting discussion to be had about hotdogs and LLMs, but whether they're sandwiches or intelligent isn't a useful proxy to them.

I'll die on this hill.

Google Sheets was phenomenal for prototyping apps and getting quick feedback from users back when I used it in 2015-2020. Back then they had this janky implementation of Mozilla Rhino underpinning their "Apps Script" engine and it still beat the pants off of anything else you could use for free.

Certainly you can shoot your feet with the various spreadsheet-isms but if you're diligent about keeping raw data pure (preferably in a completely different sheet inaccessible to users) it does a bangup job of quickly shoving a UI in front of users and letting them realize what they want and iterate on it before calcifying it into a more rigid system.

I mostly agree with comments here saying this is kind of silly to malign Google for.

I'm grateful for the piece regardless if only to inform me that the service exists (and, well — now doesn't for some countries).

I must admit I don't understand this critique. I barely use a pointing device at all to navigate Gnome—mice included.

Supposing I did, the only hamburger menus I can think of contain lesser-important functions of each app, like seeing the version/build number, or certain settings. I'm not sure I want something like a "See hidden files" ticker occupying screen real estate forever when I could just set it once in an accessory menu.

I question whether these critiques would evaporate if, instead of the three horizontal bars, Gnome instead used a gear icon or something, and turned their contents into a pop-up window rather than a popover element.

In-person "debate" is probably a really bad vehicle for truth-finding to begin with.

Surely if disagreement emerges about something: it makes sense to "debate" in some sense of the word. But only insofar as that's indistinguishable from "trying to reach a mutual conclusion."

The other use of that word — what we see in televised debates or these little Kirklike pop up stands — is where both sides are predisposed/rooted in some opinion and are instead vying over an audience (real or imagined). It's a social exercise masquerading as an intellectual one. Which, to be fair, is maybe an exercise worth engaging for a prospective president, but that nuance is lost in how we treat them.

Whether it is or isn't seems immaterial if you're of the opinion that government should step in to solve issues where the market has proved ineffective.

If it's the case that market participants have an imperative to convince the government to screw everyone else over: a solution preventing the government from being convinced by small petty nonsense seems remarkably simple, relative to the other kinds of policy challenges that exist.

> It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement

This is a puzzling critique because it seems very much in the wheelhouse of "abundance YIMBYism" to advocate for cheaper housing--an argued byproduct of which is that fewer people are displaced. It probably changes the problem statement of gentrification since, if housing is abundant and displacement is low, there's not much to distinguish "gentrification" from just "investing in the neighborhood".

>the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities

This isn't a problem caused by YIMBYism, nor one whose solutions are obstructed by it. We could by that reason malign it for not solving heart palpitations or cancer too.

Kagi and Orion both entered public beta at the same time[1]. Even if they didn't: it kind of seems unfair to indict this as an additional ambition. It's not as though browsers and search engines have an exotic relationship, and there's pertinent strategic threats that operating a browser protects against.

[1]: https://blog.kagi.com/kagi-orion-public-beta

Re: #2

I've never really challenged that text is a suitable stand-in for important bits of reality. I worry instead about meta-limitations of text: can we reliably scale our training corpus without accreting incestuous slop from other models?

Sensory bots would seem to provide a convenient way out of this problem but I'm not read-enough to know.

> which starts to defeat the claimed purpose of a Land Value Tax.

What do you think others claim the purpose of an LVT is?

> every LVT discussion eventually comes back to some inclusion of other factors to adjust the taxes or provide exemptions

This argument seems only to follow from a belief that carving exceptions out of policy here is either: inherently bad, lends to a slippery slope towards badness, or is fundamentally incompatible with the professed aims of an LVT (hence my asking).

I don't believe any of those are true, so this sounds to me an unfair indictment against the otherwise legitimate strategy of "keep what's good; change what's bad", which is practical and works for other policy all the time. While I'd scorn the complexity of our current tax code, I wouldn't do so on principle of exemptions being bad, but rather that we've made poor tradeoffs or struck a bad balance.

> ruling on what the "actual law is" is selective

US judges are not fact-checked and may rely on whatever selection of information presented in amicus briefs (as-filtered by 20-something year old law clerks trying their best) seems applicable.[1]

This seems relevant here because the mentioned figure seems to be "compliance costs" (cost to implement), not the cost on the bottom line of each org. It's very possible that that cost still exceeds $100,000,000, but it does leave more discretion in the hands of the judges than the GP would seem to imply, and more room for judges to listen to inflated estimates of cost.

Acknowledging that there's still something to be said about erring side of caution, but also that there's something to be said about what a ridiculous limit $100Mil is in 2025.

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-...

Astro and Fresh were both inspired by the islands idea which was iirc coined by an Etsy frontend architect and further elaborated on by the creator of Preact.

My understanding is that Astro is able to more-or-less take a component from any combo of popular frameworks and render it, whereas Fresh is currently limited to just Preact via Deno. I think the limitation is to optimize for not needing a build step, and not having to tweak the frameworks themselves like Astro does (did?).

I'm not affiliated; I've just looked at both tools before.

I suppose in some sense, but how is this sadder than the reality that we're not all doped up on space cocaine?

A desirable (practical) reality would seem to stem not just from first order effects now, but also in summation of all the credits and debits that it leaves us over time.

May I ask why?

It's expressly the intention of democracies to hear from constituents (and conversely: groups of constituents). That we happen to call that feedback loop "lobbying", and that the term carries some societal baggage from corporations using/abusing it is unfortunate, but shouldn't be an indictment of what is otherwise a democratic function.

Some group FOO with a shared ill should be able to convene about it and petition congress about it.

This seems unreasonably dismissive. Spitballing as to why:

* "Fedora-based" was skipped over. Or it wasn't, but you intuited something else from that term, maybe without the backdrop of Fedora's bootable containers or uBlue. Or with awareness of those tech, but without valuing their contributions to system stability (or the contributions of the broader "immutable"/"declarative" projects) as much as they perhaps warrant.

* You believe a govt end user's notion of "software quality" to matter more than (basically) any other stakeholder's notion. Or you don't recognize as intensely as I that simply having a URL to point at (or more importantly for older bureaucrats: a PDF / PDF printability) is a multiplying force on the ability to get in front of someone who makes policy decisions.

It's a project whose intended audience is the EU, with (hopeful) eventual EU adoption.

It seems not worse than e.g an American activist labeling their initiative "The American ________ Project". It's perhaps misleading here because HN's (otherwise good) rules to prevent sensationalism in titles disallows the poster to contextualize a post, except in a comment.

There has to be something cosmically funny and tragic about the number of respondents here ascribing some sort of failure to the hosting company.

God bless those among us who steal the candy bowl at Halloween.

> it offers integrity and reproducibility like no other tool (btw. guix also exists)

This rubs me the wrong way. They acknowledge that alternative tools exist, but willfully use the wrong-er statement in pursuit of a vacuous marketing idiom.

"Moral guides" are perhaps the most worthy subjects of moral scrutiny.

> I am an ordo amoris enjoyer

You seem to think this phrase implies a prescription that people ought to donate first to their adjacents (unambiguously enough to be worth including without a definition).

I'll note that, given how many sources seem to contravene that interpretation, the probability that your use of this term did not come downstream from Vice President Vance has dropped precipitously. Which might be useful information for anyone looking to diversify their information diet.

Yeah that's exactly it.

I wonder too if it could be used to help the edit reviewing process, but I can imagine it runs a risk of becoming an accountability sink[^1] if reviewers can merely defer their judgement to what the bot says is OK to purge. It might have a chilling effect on edits if everyone, including procedure hawks, can rely on it in that way. I'm not enough of a contributor there to know.

[^1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694

> Scaling the onboarding of new Wikipedia volunteers with guided mentorship.

Depending on what's meant by "mentorship": this is the bit I'm most keen to see. Much of the criticism lobbed at Wikipedia nowadays seems to come from how much of a pain it is to contribute (which perhaps leads to second-order criticisms about censorship, even if that's not the intention).

It's often been the case that the person most-worthy to speak on a subject is not the most worthy steward of a Wikipedia page on it. Any attempt to make those two people one-and-the-same seems welcome.

If this "mentorship" takes the form of UI hints, I think they'd go a long way. Having volunteers take an AI course, on the other hand, might be useful but might also be a complete waste of time.

Maybe you have a reason to be so uncharitable here, but it's unclear what that reason is since "industry" is a broad term.