hackyhacky
hackyhacky on Hacker News
No, I translated it to Haskell, with a custom container runtime.
Wait, you mean my vibecoded Facebook ripoff won't make me a billionaire like Zuck? Bummer.
You're fighting a losing war against human laziness and gullibility.
Awesome. Thanks for making this project!
I like the dog in place of the Apple menu, it's cute. Is that Zac?
> "grown rigid or unresponsive especially with age"
> As opposed to what?
As opposed to the famously agile and youthful atmosphere of American legislation in technology.
/s
> “Because it sounds fun, and confirms my biases. Now I’m going to forward this to a hundred other people or I’ll have bad luck.”
That's also how politics has worked since (at least) 2015. Who needs evidence about outlandish claims when the vibes are right?
Anyway, me and my friends are going to go eat some cats and dogs.
I have never heard anyone claim that McKinsey is a purveyor of quality shovels. My impression is that they're corporate parasites who contribute little of value.
> and can never do AI.
How did you reach that conclusion? Apple has $62B just sitting around. They could hire as many AI people as they want and have Siri compete with the frontier models. They certainly can do AI.
I guess that are choosing not to do that because that's just not their business and they'd prefer to avoid the upcoming AI bloodbath. Why develop a search engine/social network/frontier AI when you can just use someone else's?
Honestly, I think the push to constantly add browser features (and thereby expand the already massive web API) is misguided. This feature, in particular, seems like it should be solved with library, rather than by further bloating the browser.
If I put on my conspiracy hat, it looks like Google is pushing to expand the web API as a means to maintain its lead in the browser market by making it harder for other browsers (i.e. Firefox) to maintain feature parity.
> people still do not understand in big 2026 that's it's just a probabilistic database,
We understand that AI responses are generated through probabilistic means. We also understand that human responses are generated through probabilistic means. Neither is inherently more representative of true understanding than the other.
My comment, "For many people, those shitty services are the only way they stay in touch with friends and family," is an observation, not an "excuse" (in your words). The fact is that most people don't even know someone who understands how bad social media is. Moreover, even if they did, as you suggest, download Signal, and even if they use it with the one person in their life who insists on it, they'll still be using Facebook for everyone else. Ingrained habits are hard to change, especially when they are carefully formulated addictions.
For many people, those shitty services are the only way they stay in touch with friends and family.
No, there are lots of other reasons to be upset about corporate tyranny.
> Twitter interfered with US elections by banning Trump.
You mean when Twitter "permanently" banned Trump in January of 2021, after the 2020 election (which he lost)? Which election do you suppose that interfered with?
It doesn't matter whether Republicans lose the election or not. Trump will just ignore/dismiss the election results, or ignore/dismiss Congress, as he did has done for the last two years.
> I'm not moving the goalposts -- you just changed the subject
That's not an accurate representation of this conversation.
"Applying known stuff to new contexts" is creative, original work, and is quite different from "working out the answers to a problem set", as mentioned in the comment that I am replying to. Don't move the goalposts.
Moreover, that's precisely the kind of work that AIs can do. So why would anyone pay you to do that, whether or not you find it satisfying?
> We’re not talking about shoes or handbags, we’re talking about the thing that makes us human.
Exactly. That's why people are upset, and why more people are going to be upset as AI subsumes more parts of society. The handbags are just an analogy.
I wouldn't say that independent human thought will become "extinct," but rather that it will be severely devalued. And I don't see any technical reason why AIs can't replace every aspect of human thought, including creativity.
> So weird that we in the tech industry are so willing to ruin humanity for the sake of a sick IPO.
Not all of us. But the people who are making the decisions about AI have their own set of values.
I think this totally misses the point. Biologists aren't involved in
creating, but they are deeply involved in a process of
discovery.
And just like coders and mathematicians, that process of discovery is liable to be overtaken by AI, eventually. What does a biologist do then?
> I don't know about you, but I got a lot of satisfaction from finding proofs for my math problem sets despite the fact that they were "solved problems"
Good for you, but that's not a job, and no one is going to award you a PhD for doing that.
Sure. And how many such skilled craftspeople are there per capita, compared to the number of craftspeople when all tables were made by hand?
> the old approach very much still exists though.
You are willfully misinterpreting the comment. You know exactly what they mean, which is that the meaning behind the craft is gone. The value of performing the craft is not in itself, but in the feeling of creating something of value, something useful to other people.
> For every single one of them, there's millions of us.
Yes, the ruling elite are typically outnumbered by the masses. It matters little: by historical standards, the ruling powers have virtually always leveraged their power to exploit those who don't have power. No reason to assume that streak will end.
> who has already ben impeached for one visible and overt coup attempt,
Don't "overt" and "visible" mean the same thing in this context?
There are many good reasons for an American to be deeply embarrassed by this administration. The push to normalize the term "Super Intelligence", while not highly consequential, is a deeply silly, juvenile, and therefore embarrassing move, emblematic of the lack of thoughtfulness with which the current government makes decisions. It's also utterly tone-deaf and fails to even pay lip-service to the legitimate concerns that many citizens have about the impact of AI on their lives.
Getting downvoted by Musk fanboys is a badge of honor
> or the pleasure of harassment towards Asperger people
I expect that motivates exactly zero percent of the criticism that Musk gets.