7bees
7bees on Hacker News
Actual subject matter experts at the IRS already did this, but then funding was killed. They did open-source it during the project's death throes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1l13uvu/irs_op...Filing your taxes seems like one of the worst conceivable use of vibe-coding, out of innumerable terrible uses.
You used their project to self-promote your site, in a way that someone perceived as violating their AI policy, and now you're using that trivial slight to cry here for attention so that you can further try to self-promote your site, using the account that you use solely to self-promote your site. You seemingly posted multiple blog posts about this non-incident, also to try to self-promote your site.
Please consider that other people are human beings and not just NPCs that exist to help you make money.
Ah yes, just be independently wealthy.
Many working novelists have described being pressured by their publishers to write whatever the publisher believes will sell, and many have given in to the pressure because ultimately they need to eat. Arthur Conan Doyle famously kept writing Sherlock Holmes stories despite hating it, because the public and his publishers demanded it. The foreword to Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard Of Earthsea talks about how she was convinced to write a children's/YA book despite not really wanting to.
The post you're replying to maybe overstated things, but was much closer to reality than your post.
Yes, doing bad things can have good secondary effects.
I mean it literally starts with "What mindless cretin thought that it should be a good idea", and later calls them a "bagbiter". If you were responsible for the change, you would feel insulted. His basic point seems valid, but this is not a great way to present it.
Many fireworks are designed to explode at altitude. The biggest risk is probably if the firework is ingested into an engine (also a major risk for bird strikes).
> once whatever discussion happens
Yes, it seems like a very fast process when you neglect the part that takes time.
I'm not aware of any organization that has the same requirements to fund its future pension obligations that the USPS has. That requirement was created by Congress as part of a sustained campaign to damage the USPS.
It seems like your argument is actually that Congress should rescind that requirement, so that USPS can afford to better service urban customers while continuing to be a critical lifeline to rural areas.
Curly braces are a very uncommon piece of punctuation outside of math and programming. If you picked a person at random, they will find "curly brace" (and indeed, "square bracket") much clearer and less ambiguous. Doubly so when accounting for variations between British and American English.
That's not what the post you're replying to said, at all.
I'm not in a position to evaluate whether they were right, but you've presented this as if it proves them wrong when it's barely related to what they said.
Yes, it is. The article includes a link to a comparison between the default file and the one allegedly used here. The default starts with:
_You're not a chatbot. You're becoming someone._
xAI acquired twitter in 2025 as part of Musk's financial shell game (probably the same game he is playing with SpaceX/xAI now).
> The actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet
This is an oversimplification, in a way that is likely not obvious to a lot of people on this (software-focused) forum. An SDS does not have to list exact amounts, does not have to disclose some details of how an ingredient or mix of ingredients was processed, and (depending on jurisdiction) may not have to identify some "safe" ingredients at all. Some ingredients may be identified in relatively vague ways, that are sufficient for safety purposes but do not reveal the exact product. As the SDS you linked to says "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret". An SDS is certainly very helpful to reverse-engineering a product, but it doesn't tell you everything.
All that said, yes, the main strength of WD-40 is its marketing and ubiquity, and claims about its secrecy have more to do with marketing than anything practical.
You can correlate microarchitecture to product SKUs using the Intel site that the article links. AMD has a similar site with similar functionality (except that AFAIK it won't let you easily get a list of products with a given uarch). These both have their faults, but I'd certainly pick them over an LLM.
But you're correct that for anything buried in the guts of CPUID, your life is pain. And Intel's product branding has been a disaster for years.
Intel doesn't like to officially use codenames for products once they have shipped, but those codenames are used widely to delineate different families (even by them!), so they compromise with the awkward "products formerly x" wording. Have done for a long time.
It has pretty much always been the case that you need to make sure the motherboard supports the specific chip you want to use, and that you can't rely on just the physical socket as an indicator of compatibility (true for AMD as well). For motherboards sold at retail the manufacturer's site will normally have a list, and they may provide some BIOS updates over time that extend compatibility to newer chips. OEM stuff like this can be more of a crapshoot.
All things considered I actually kind of respect the relatively straightforward naming of this and several of Intel's other sockets. LGA to indicate it's land grid array (CPU has flat "lands" on it, pins are on the motherboard), 2011 because it has 2011 pins. FC because it's flip chip packaging.