jackp96
I feel like the technique recommendations are probably the most valuable element, but I'm getting rave reviews like 85% of the time now?
There have been a couple times where I was out of an ingredient and it proposed an adjustment that sounded a little wild to me, but it almost always is well received.
I'm all for inclusivity, but there's a certain point/form of language policing where you're asking folks to perform a lot of mental labor to adjust their language to reflect an extremely rare edge case. Like why?
It's like if we insisted that people avoid the phrase "look at this" in general communication lest you offend/exclude a blind person who might be listening.
Maybe I just live in a red area, but I see a lot of people judge liberals based on wild Twitter takes and random think pieces — which aren't actually policies/rule of law.
If Joe Biden signed an EO denouncing the use of the phrase "pregnant woman" in government documents as a queerphobic slur or mandating Gov employees add their pronouns to their email signatures, I'd find this take more compelling.
But he didn't.
I don't love Pydantic, though. It's probably a skill issue, but it just feels messier/clunkier than Zod's parsing options.
Shut it all down until we build a framework for handling this kind of power responsibily.
I don't think you need Machiavellianism to explain their actions. These people have everything they could need, but death comes for all of us and they aren't getting any younger.
Purely speculating, but if you had everything in the world (except time) wouldn't you put everything you have into building a future with a 10% chance of living as long as you wanted? What would you sacrifice for that?
But I think there are definitely some opportunities for boosting your marketing/product strategy. Maybe ask ChatGPT for guidance on optimizing your advertising/marketing efforts?
I think there's enough low-hanging fruit (landing page that offers a free trial behind an email sign-up) that it'd probably help.
Crime's been decreasing for years, and (from what I understand) this year is tracking to be one of the safest years on record?
Definitionally, there absolutely has to be a correlation (not causation) between those two factors you listed.
Like, internet speeds are far faster than they used to be, cheap phones are much better than expensive phones were a decade ago, TVs used to be an expensive status symbol 15 years ago — and look at them now.
Video games basically didn't index with inflation for years, and it's easy to pick up great older games at cheap prices on sale.
YouTube is free and an incredible resource for learning, entertainment, and brainrot.
Google Maps provides free GPS services, which are incredibly valuable. You even have FreeVee-style streaming services that don't require a subscription.
That's not to say that Tesla's autopilot isn't safer than the average human driver—it might be—but I thought it was settled territory that Waymos are better on safety.
I see a future here for digital advertising, for design mock-ups, for political propaganda, for robotics model training/world simulation, for fan movies, etc.
But the film industry is struggling to get eyeballs and butts in seats already; using a tool that most people inside-and-outside the industry loathe isn't the answer to fixing that.
At most, I could see it used for pre-viz/pre-production work in Hollywood.
I think it'd work better if you featured the animated background effect toward the top of the page and shifted toward static graphics (or much subtler animations) as the user scrolls.
And I don't think the zoom-out effect on the listing cards has the intended effect; I found myself wanting to get a better look at the papers and was a little disappointed/annoyed when they got smaller and harder to see as I pulled them into view.
The colors/shadows/layout all looks really nice, but I feel like the animations (as-is) ultimately detract from the experience rather than add to it. Thanks for sharing, though!
So maybe tweaking your usage (ex. no spaces around them) or using a technically incorrect en-dash might offer the desired effect while subtly signaling that your message isn't AI-generated.
I still use them — mostly for pauses — but I'd like to think my voice sounds distinct enough from an AI that people can tell.
Our CEO just took a design mock-up of a new landing page and threw it into Fable, and it spit out an objectively better iteration of the component's design. The hierarchy made more sense, the typography was more polished, and it naturally incorporated some elements we hadn't added yet.
We won't implement everything it changed of course, but it's the first time I've seen a model take a decent draft of a webpage mockup and improve it in a way that feels like a more evolved version of the original instead of just LLM-ifying it.
While I'm now on my phone too much, and I don't read fiction as much as I used to, I'm grateful for those foundations.
The friction and discomfort that come from reading/exercising/learning/growing is so important, and I hope we can find a healthier balance for the next generation.
But "almost all praise is fake" and "small talk is all lies" feels like a pretty depressing place to end up?
Why do you feel like that's the case? How do you differentiate sincere praise from "fake" praise?
AppBlock on Android has a feature that allows you to continue using an app after your time limit is up — if you're willing to wait 3 minutes without swiping to another app. And then, by default, it'll kick back in 15 minutes later.
Works really well for me.
Some companies are in highly competitive spaces while others have found a quiet, profitable niche.
And companies do have to compete for talent. If you want A-level players on your team, you're going to have to pay them more and/or provide benefits that surpass the competition.
Though that's not to say they're acting altruisticly here.
Google seems to be racing toward a new dark pattern where users learn to trust rely on the AI for neutral, smart objectively correct answers — which boosts trust in its sponsored product recommendations. Super gross.
I don't love casinos or lotteries, but at least there's the friction of having to travel to a physical location to feed your addiction.
And then there's the whole "insider trading" and "gambling on war" angles that come into play with prediction markets.
But there is a (somewhat plausible) defense here: if someone forwards you an email and you hit the unsubscribe link, then it unsubscribes them; not you. Requiring the user to enter their email helps ensure you don't accidentally unsubscribe the wrong person.
That said — the most impactful thing anyone can do to punish dark pattern digital marketing behavior is to report the message as SPAM in your email client. That'll hurt their delivery rates and damage their sending reputation with email providers.
If you wear nice clothes and exercise, then are you just trying to manipulate people into thinking you have taste and are attractive?
If you work hard at your job and are responsive to your boss's requests, then are you just manipulating them into thinking you're a good worker and giving you a raise?
These tools can certainly be misused (see shitty salespeople), but I don't "attempting to convince others that you are cool and likable" is problematic and manipulative.
Just don't fake it. That's the part people have a problem with. I just read it as "if you want people to care about your shit, then it's only fair you care about theirs first."
If 95% of people are using $100 of value a month, the whales may not be hurting them that badly.
But as other commenters have pointed out — a lot of it is NIMBYism (plus a heavy dose of overregulation).
Conservatives tend to point at projects like this as examples of why our incompetent government shouldn't be allowed to build large projects.
But other countries can do this (including a good chunk of Europe), so I think it's really valuable to dig in and understand why we struggle.
Comment sections on paid substacks tend to be much better than free ones. And on Hackernews (and Reddit, a decade ago), the old-school, text-heavy approach (complete with voting) help ensure that quality content rises.
I find the balance fascinating — exactly how much friction do you need to create a healthy online community? And what are the best ways of doing that without making people pay?
It's not because AI-generated music inherently sucks. It's generally C-grade professional music. It's just not novel or especially interesting, and the low barrier to entry means there's a ton of slop in the space.
A lot of people have always wanted to make music, never made it past the barrier of "music is hard," and therefore have no clue as to what makes truly good music. And now that they have AI, they think they can just skip all the boring parts and make great songs.
And while they can skip a lot of steps in the creative process — those skipped steps also help musicians develop their artistic taste and judgment.
And just because these AI "creators" can't tell the difference, they assume others can't either. And then they get mad when critics recognize their uninspired, derivative slop for what it is.
That's not limited to music, either. You see it in coding, graphic design, writing, and pretty much any other LLM-assisted content generation. Maybe it'll change one day as models get better. Maybe not.
This project is original, stylish, technically clever, aesthetically pleasing, and well-crafted. There's a level of polish and intention behind it, and people here recognize that.
That said, show me where I'm wrong. I'd love to change my mind on this.
And selfishly — I'd rather not run into a scenario where my boss pulls up GitHub, sees Claude credited for hundreds of commits, and then he impulsively decides that perhaps Claude's doing the real work here and that we could downsize our dev team or replace with cheaper, younger developers.
I (unfortunately) just don't think it's pragmatic/reasonable to expect enough people to make personal sacrifices/reduce QOL to make a dent. It's a tragedy of the commons, and we need some form of reasonable regulation to cut down on the worst offenders (probably carbon taxes) while we invest heavily in improving the technology so it makes financial sense to switch.
Renewables have come so far in the past decade and are now competitive with fossil fuels in terms of pricing. As the technology continues to become more efficient and cheaper, we'll likely start to see significant drops in emissions in addition to cheaper energy.*
*Assuming the US elects a rational adult to the presidency in 2028.