udbhavs

Sure, but would that be one that contains services and apps ordinary people use everyday, or would they all have jumped ship like Netflix did? That version would still be an open web, just a very different one.

Genuinely asking here: is there a future where we end up with a version of the open web where everything isn’t paywalled or ID gated?

The article mentions the IETF is working on standards to deal with the proposed legislature and frustration of site operators. Almost any solution is going to be at the expense of user convenience and privacy. I see two interesting solutions mentioned here: micropayments, and proof-of-work. It seems unlikely the future of the open web will land on either. Both are inconvenient but at least could be done by anybody, potentially in a privacy preserving way. Using reputation based decentralized identity is another one (eg. proving you’re coming from a web domain or group), that seems more inconvenient for the platform because of false positives that could come through.

Meanwhile, a worse outcome is requiring attested hardware to get access to anything on the web. This already exists from the media companies pushing for controlled access to streaming. Netflix requires an hardware attested device to stream in 4K. Imagine a future where you now need one to read a New York Times article.

I can see some pushback against the alternatives (eg. digital ID), but if privacy preserving proofs are built in from the get go, it’s much better than not being able to see recipes because I have a rooted Android.

I'm not sure if this question is in good faith. I would ask whether you have any proximity to any sort of creative or filmmaking work (in response to "who keys anymore"- several, several, examples), but it's honestly worse if the answer is yes. I hope the field isn't so far gone that we're genuinely asking what's the point if, god forbid, someone wants to put a real person in front of a green screen instead of a generative avatar.

This is cool! Unfortunately a side effect is going to be more flashy vibe coded product landing pages adding expensive shader effects to all of their HTML. If you thought scrolljacking was bad, we're going to be seeing some interesting hover / mouse / navigation effects.

> With the threat of climate action looming, he wrote, the company’s research and development on “Greenhouse” should have two primary goals: “Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal),” and “Preserve Exxon’s business options.”

> Sprow then laid out an agenda for how to achieve those ends.

> With modeling critical to climate science, he wrote, “it could be considered important to be at the forefront of this modeling effort.” Sprow proposed “supporting a person on staff at one of the leading modeling centers (e.g. Princeton) or by sending one of our people to work in such a center.”

The picture this article paints of academia seems pretty bleak to me as a layperson. I thought shady science by corps just meant publishing a few bad faith studies and pushing them hard in media, but apparently it's possible to do "incentive-driven science" in a fashion that lets you sow seeds that can influence decades of downstream research.

I would hope that the framework of science itself has guardrails to prevent these efforts from obscuring more globally relevant results in favor of "technically true" pieces that do everything the right way but are badly motivated and omit methodologies which lead to undesirable results. For people who have experience in this area - how much critical thinking do you need when reading papers on climate research? Can the research be good enough by itself on merit, or is any opinion incomplete without evaluating the journal, affiliation of the authors, funding sources, etc.?

> Dreaming Sarah (2D platformer) runs at a stable 60 fps on a GTX 1050 Ti / i5-7500 3.4GHz

Glad to see this type of hardware still included in the testing flows!

I've been working in this space with a small team that is also trying to solve this with open standards. There are many emerging protocols/standards and many dimensions to consider. I have a list of 50 standards using different primitives and flows, but it's hard to see which ones will stick around at this point.

You could split use cases by scope. One is internal organization and IAM cases, which makes it easy for you to use a centralized identity provider (IdP) to issue some sort of token grant access to an app.

Use cases where you don't want to fix an IdP, like payments or verifying the someone's credentials before giving access on the open web, get more involved. You could have multiple valid IdPs, reputation / claims linked to IDs (since being on the IdP itself is no longer sufficient for an app to let the actor through), inheriting authority through multiple hops (giving your authorization to someone), enforcing narrowing permissions for those use cases, handling revocations. And then there's also the matter of being compatible with other emerging standards that are coming up (eg. A2P for agent payment authorization).

We settled on the core primitives of W3C DIDs for identity, Verifiable Credentials for delegations, and StatusList bitstrings for revocations as the "minimal set of ingredients" that address all the above. They are all open standards. DIDs are particularly cool because you can have them bound to passkeys, web domains through existing PKI, and even ledgers.

We did need to add a few specs of our own on top to address how it would work with use cases like MCP (for replacing OAuth flows, which have had messy implementations on coding agents since inception.) Our MCP example [0] also tries to make it incrementally adoptable and work alongside OAuth, so for example an operator could add it as a wrapper today and start collecting logs with identity claims for each tool call for auditability. It's a work in progress so hearing feedback on what seems confusing / hard to understand would be helpful.

[0] https://github.com/decentralized-identity/kya-os-mcp

I was hearing a lot of hype with regards to the Nuvia acquisition prior to these coming out, happy to see it turned out well.

> No, you silly geese. What you are able to spot is somebody using AI poorly. That's not you developing taste. It's the equivalent of being able to tell something is photoshopped because somebody used a default brush poorly, or masked something poorly and then confounding using Photoshop with using Photoshop poorly.

Speaking only for myself, that is absolutely accounted into my despair when I see an AI poster. Not just the fact that we're having a wide range of cultural and regional artifacts being stamped out and homogenized by the convenience of AI posters, but the fact that I'm only able to point them out right now because the public backlash is somewhat limited to the online sphere, so most people are okay with the default result it spits out. And we're one default ChatGPT/Claude "curated diversified aesthetic selector" feature away from making my current discernment completely useless.

Of course there's an argument of "if it's so good you can't tell, is there really a problem?", but here I'm responding specifically to the argument of a negative reaction to AI posters not taking the above into account.

I was about to link the "discovery fiction" article [0] by Michael Nielsen, but halfway through saw Grant mention it as an inspiration. It's one of my favorite styles of writing that lets you settle into a cozy read of a narrative around a problem while slowly exposing you to the rigor and nuances of tackling it. It's definitely deserving of a public index of some sort, like one of those "Awesome X" list repositories on GitHub, because I think it's a valuable style that deserves to be curated.

[0]: https://michaelnotebook.com/df/index.html

For me, the "wires" are the play! I go into VCV rack when the intention-oriented workflows in a DAW like Ableton feel too much "on the rails". The large exploration space of a virtual modular setup is tedious if you're trying to do a straightforward DAW task but wonderful if you are itching to have something unexpected and inspiring thrown at you within the action space of one or two knob or wiring changes.

I feel called out as one of them. I definitely overextend in terms of internet references if I'm anxious to try to catch something the other person is interested in. Among many "online" people, memes are basically a form of in-group signaling at this point to indicate you have a similar shape of humor, quirks, shared fandoms, and values (albeit often surface level). I'm reminded of the quote about fandoms by Roger Ebert [0]. I would say it's a similar tendency to use online references as a way to skirt social awkwardness and establish some commonality.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1192222-a-lot-of-fans-are-b...

Trying to get off the internet for me feels like a messy divorce. It's difficult because it was essentially my world growing up, shaped my value system and defined the type of things I should strive towards. Being involved in game dev, electronic music, and CTF communities exposed me to people doing all sorts of cool things and made me aspire to be at their level.

There were really two components to it I valued - the inherent interest in the topic itself of course, but also the sense of community and recognition you got as you dove deeper and created cooler things to share with people. At some point the second overtook the first, and I internally started to value the outcome or reaction to something I would create more than the satisfying pursuit of making itself. Doing a thing wasn't valuable unless it would be acknowledged by some group of people. It's been a long process trying to get rid of that mindset and I'm still not done, and has caused a lot of anxiety and questioning my interest in the hobbies I love.

A lot of the questioning has been driven by the absolute saturation of my online feeds. The algorithm can so quickly figure out the type of stuff I like and show me so much of it that it begins to start feeling meaningless in 10 minutes of scrolling - deconstructing that value system in real time (and I guess technically helping? hooray for accelerationism). If there is so much out there, what am I supposed to create that could add to the pile in a meaningful way? It really takes a lot of effort to sever yourself from the algorithmic mindset and remind yourself that you got into it because you like doing the thing.

Not to mention the second order effects, like the ancillary feelings of guilt that show up because I start questioning why I want to avoid seeing things about topics I supposedly enjoy. Part of it is personal flaw - I find it difficult to see something cool without feeling some imperative to figure out how I could do it myself. When I don't want to feel bothered, I'm driven towards more mindless consumption that doesn't run the risk of reminding me that I should be doing something. I feel I would be much happier engaging in the hobbies I have if I was a bit less aware of everything related to them going on in every part of the world, and the algorithm is a big culprit in that. Detaching from it is not just hard because "phone feels good", but also because it means completely giving up on the value system I grew up on, where you could know if you were doing something meaningful if it got attention from other people in the communities you wanted to be a part of. "Attention" has been too commoditized at this point to use it as a fulfilling indicator of return (but unfortunately, some people have to play this game if they want to support a living off a creative endeavor - at least I can ignore that part because I just make music or do creative coding as a hobby).

Oops, I might have been misremembering then. Maybe I meant 4 to 5

I remember when GPT-4 came out and the perceived performance upgrade seemed underwhelming for a major release compared to 3.5, especially how there were graphics going around showing the parameter size dwarfing the last model before it came out. It looked like we were past the perceivable differences from release to release that were immediately identifiable. Now the jump between 5 to 5.5 and 5.6 alone has changed how a lot of people approach AI, including me. Interested to see where it goes with 6.

Minor nitpick, but the handling in the Kart Racer game is terrible. It feels more like nudging than turning.

Very cool! I'm trying to understand the graph, so the bottom-most section seems to be the cluster identifying Claude written PRs. What are the other 7, any reason there are 8 in total?

I've been scraping instagram posts recently to identify AI misinformation accounts that all repost each other's carousels and get hundreds of thousands of likes in engagement. Thinking of ways to present it and your dashboard looks very helpful. Did you experiment with any other types of visualizations before deciding on a stacked area chart for the clusters?

I've been thinking more about how 99.9% of us don't have the experience of someone significantly more intelligent, yet also subservient working under us, which is why I keep going crazy second guessing whether Claude is spouting RLHF'd bullshit that sort of resembles English, or is genuinely (pun not intended) just better at "intuiting" things I'm working on, leading to its language.

A notable exception would be people like CEOs and managers higher up in big tech, who might be used to skilled engineers and domain experts reporting to them in unfamiliar lingo. Maybe that's why we don't hear as much on the everyday annoyances of Claude's language from that camp?

Hate to comment more on the drama, but it's only after watching Andrew Kelley's talk at Software Should Work [1] that I realized how philosophically different he is from Jarred and the broader SF AI/VC sphere. Here he is in a conference talking about agency, enshittification, and learning to deprogram from a deeply religious background and then using that experience of internal questioning to define his relationship with computers.

And somehow, the programming language he made (that currently bans AI contributions outright) ended up being instrumental for a tool that's in the center of the whole craze, and doing Tony Hawk 900 aerial spins with agentic AI software rewrites under a frontier lab. I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of the rewrite, but it seems fascinating that for a moment Zig found itself at the intersection of two very different camps that the software world seems to be divided into. It seems in retrospect like a bomb waiting to go off even if they didn't jump ship to Rust!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLZwpH5lCD4

> It supports my learning only in the sense that it makes me feel like im doing things right

I think my downfall might have been questioning the efficacy of my method beyond it just "feeling right" and trying to find ways to show myself that I am learning.. maybe the correct approach is to just do whatever and hope for the best

It is funny, I like reading about standards and certifications! I'm definitely more on the anxious side which leads to information hoarding tendencies and trying to think as much as I can before I act. I would love to get pulled a bit in your direction and be a bit more trigger-happy with making decisions and putting out things.

> That needs to start all conversations in this area. Not everyone had the same goals.

That's a very good question. In my case, when learning in the mode I described above, my brain is often more worried about the amount of unknown stuff versus focusing on what I am working on at the moment. With that, learning starts to feel like a burden and leads to burnout (even though I enjoy solving problems). I can become closed off to new information, and disheartened at everything I don't know.

The problem I'd like to solve is being able to retain excitement about learning while working on projects without it feeling like an obligation. There are probably more base issues to address for this (eg. being less controlling of outcomes). And there's particularly a lot of doubt now that AI coding is the norm, and I feel uncomfortable with moving faster because I feel attached to all the details. That has turned the debate much larger about what anyone really needs to know if they can blitz through stuff at the speed of prompting.

Great advice, thanks!

> Usually homeworks get very easy which is a good sign

I agree, but having homeworks in itself is a big advantage! It means you're in a structured learning environment where someone has taken the care to create a learning path and added checkpoints with carefully designed problems designed to refresh + assess what you've absorbed until that point.

When you're learning outside the classroom (for yourself or on the job), there's this sudden loss of all bounds where you now also have to draw a line of what knowledge is reasonable to acquire and what is out of scope. For example, when working independently on personal projects, I sometimes get sucked into reading about the details of protocols, standards, RFCs etc. and have a difficult time deciding when to stop.

One answer is learn just enough to solve the problem at hand at move on, but if you're in a field like eg. security you feel an obligation to do your due diligence when designing something. And of course, with LLMs now it's possible to move past any problem without learning anything at all, so you have to be even more intentional in which things you do decide to learn.

I've realized that most of my tendencies to set up elaborate note-taking systems and frameworks have been an attempt to address my anxiety around learning and productivity. I'm constantly in the mode of "learning defensively" - questioning what I'm absorbing into my mental toolkit, how much I retain, and how much I'd be able to conjure if I needed to solve a problem in that domain. In this context, noting down whatever I come across in Obsidian canvases or webs of interlinked notes or making Anki flash cards gives me some comfort about what I'm doing, and of course satisfies the urge of organizing and categorizing things.

But when I relate these activities to learning itself, it becomes difficult to gauge how much of it is necessary. If I don't constantly serialize or test what I'm learning, how do I know I'm learning anything at all? And externalizing so much starts to feel like a burden and gives me less confidence in my own intrinsic ability to just go and do things.

I was going to post an "Ask HN" on this topic to see if other people related to this. If anyone has been in this mindset before and managed to break out of it, I'd be curious to know what helped!

What can be more earthy than a forest? Jokes aside it does look like the effort there is a step above pages like this one or other examples linked in thread.

Wow, no wonder Copilot looked so out of place within the Windows UI. It's not the only core app that blatantly goes against Windows' design language either- Movie Maker and later the built-in video editor in Photos both died for ClipChamp which is some horrible, out-of-place web-based video editor with a mandatory login and feels like it has absolutely no relation to Windows. I'm surprised people from above don't enforce at least basic UI elements that look like they belong to the same product (forget about using the same UI framework across the OS)

Honestly, I'd take this over purple tailwind any day. That style has given me an ick for the color scheme I don't know if I'll ever shake off

It's a trend that signals a form of non-chronically-online intellectualism. Feels reminiscent of intellectual slop [1] content on the web that is in vogue

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dEYvdnwB4MM

Not surprising considering out of all the things MS is known for, UX consistency is certainly not one of them. They have probably the weakest commitment to a design language across all the big tech cos.