I don't understand why we need VC-backed extensions to filter sites, these tools have existed for a long time under open-source codebases and community-driven blocklists.
I think it's better to use Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey. Rules are deterministic, you have full control, and you don't have to worry about monetization or malicious data collection in the future.
There have been multiple incidents in the past of extensions like these being sold off to sketchy third party companies which then use the popularity to insert malware into folks' machines.
I really recommend against this. The AI spin doesn't add much since most sites have had rules that work for years, they don't change that often. Please don't build up this type of dependence on a company for regular browsing.
> I don't understand why we need VC-backed extensions to filter sites, these tools have existed for a long time under open-source codebases and community-driven blocklists.
The VCs didn't fund us for this, we pivoted. (shhh don't tell them (edit: /s))
> I think it's better to use Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey. Rules are deterministic, you have full control, and you don't have to worry about monetization or malicious data collection in the future.
When you do a generation, the result is a deterministic script. You can even go to the options page and read the code for it yourself. From my experience though, writing a GM script from scratch is a massive pain. We just make that much more accessible.
> I really recommend against this. The AI spin doesn't add much since most sites have had rules that work for years, they don't change that often. Please don't build up this type of dependence on a company for regular browsing.
You're not wrong that rules can be robust. However, this extension has enabled me to build helpers that I never would have thought to implement by hand. E.g. on this page "highlight threads where jmadeano has not replied" -> super useful if I can generate it in a few seconds but a huge waste of time if I had to implement it myself.
Joking aside, VCs want founders to build something people want. We built this because we knew that we wanted it ourselves. In fact, initially we only built it for ourselves (as a fun weekend project), but as we shared it with more people, they wanted it too. At the end of the day, if you build a great product that people love, the rest can often take care of itself
Double funny considering new-grads who may polish up some UI features or rewrite components for the 10th time will get paid 200-400K TC at these same companies. Evidently these companies value something other than straight labor.
Sounds a lot like "Stoemp", from Belgium. Spinach and carrot are classic, but any veggie works. Funny how very similar dishes can be found across the world under different names.
She's right though, when's the last time you've been to a public gathering place that hasn't had background music? It doesn't need to be loud, but without music if there's a natuural lull in the conversation it can just be a little awkward haha
#4 has been tough for me - I take it semi-personally, as a sign of disrespect. I get that everyone has things going on. That said committing to an event where the host spends time + money to prepare forand then not going just seems so rude to me.
I try not to give folks a hard time, but after a couple strikes I just won't invite them anymore. It's not worth accomodating people who regularly flake, they can hang out with other flakes.
Usually, people who don't want to go to your party will find an excuse as early as possible to decline your invitation in order to avoid unpleasantness and awkwardness for themselves.
Assume that the vast majority of people you properly invited and that RSVP you DID want to go, even if they flaked at the last moment. Yes, there are some inconsiderate bastards out there, but there's a big subset of flakers that do feel guilty/regret not going, far more than we can imagine.
You need to understand that in the great schema of life, parties for the invitee are always at a lower priority compared to work, health and family issues: A single guy may have finally got a date, a mom can be having issues with their kids at school near exams period, someone may be anxious after a not so great feedback at a work 1:1 with their boss and decided to polish their resume.
And besides life stuff preempting party attendance, there are a lot of other factors. Some people you invite may have been raised in an environment where, due to poverty, immigration, family issues, they were never really in too many parties, and thus, while they may wish to enjoy your party, they may become too anxious to attend what is an unfamiliar experience to them.
Depressed, low esteem people, for example, will have a big probability of believing that your invitation was not that serious, and that you only invited them out of politeness. Actually, you don't even need to have depression issues in the mix for that to happen, some cultures have a marked tendency to avoid directness in communication, and for those people, if you don't have a close connection to them, or if they perceive you as higher status than them, they will believe your invitation is not actual for real, and they are not really expected to attend.
So, for some of those people I think that is worth your effort insisting more than twice, maybe trying to make they really feel welcome and needed a bit more.
It may sound crazy and counter-intuitive, but sometimes, just sometimes, some of the people who flaked do respect you more than some of the people who went and just wanted to have a good time for free.
Your logic is unsound. The child does not exist, the person living does exist. Typical childfree folks like myself don't point at kids and say "ew, that kid shouldn't exist!". This is bias towards values that some don't align too.
> isn't it also net negative for you to continue in this world?
Careful here. Whether you intended to or not, my interpretation of what you said is "if you don't think it's right to bring a child into this world, then you should consider suicide".
> Yet people will continue living their own life while talking about how they don't think it's fair to have a child.
No, this is not what childfree folks say. We do not want kids, we do not care what you do.
The part about "don't think it's fair to have a child" meant that you don't think it's fair for the child.
The point about suicide is approximately what I meant, although of course I do not intend to drive anyone to suicide, only to help them see that their preference to live would also be shared by a hypothetical child.
If your revealed preference is to exist rather than not to exist in this "world in crisis", why would you not afford a hypothetical child the same courtesy?
Samuel Johnson in 1760 or so would have answered such questions with the observation that he could kick a person that exists, who would object and express an opinion.
In contrast a hypothetical child is both unkickable and unable to express a sentiment.
Unless your position is that every sperm is sacred and all wrigglers must strive to leave no egg unfertilised thus maximising a birth rate at greater than ten babies per woman I fear that you also fail to uphold the existence of every hypothetical child.
There are lots of reasons not to have the maximum possible number of children!
I'm not saying you should have the maximum possible number of children, or any children at all. It's up to you.
What I'm saying is that "world in crisis" is not a good reason for you to reduce the number of children you plan to have, if your personal preference is in fact to continue living in this "world in crisis" yourself.
> What I'm saying is that "world in crisis" is not a good reason for you to reduce the number of children you plan to have, if your personal preference is in fact to continue living in this "world in crisis" yourself.
I would suggest you have a poor grasp of the timescale of the "world in crisis" then.
The AGW threat, as put forward in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports is a slow boiling frog scenario, one that steadily gets worse as insulation in the atmosphere continues to increase.
A number of people may, and indeed do, consider that their lives from this time until their projected death assuming good health, will be pleasant enough, but that the lives of their children and potential grandchildren will be worse and might face a rapid decline in quality of life at some point.
Another group, with some overlap in the greater Venn diagram, might consider that one part of a solution includes decreasing overall consumption - and a reduction of numbers in high per capita consumption societies makes sense.
The reasoning of both groups is simple enough, little is achieved by killing themselves, something is gained by a reduction in human population, and hypothetic non existing grand children are spared a life much worse.
For most people, though, there's not neccesarily any clear decision, just behaviour that follows observations made decades past by Hans Rosling and others; as education and quality of life improve, so fall birth rates.
> I'm sure I could learn to be slightly faster on dvorak/colemak, but nothing beats the convenience of always having guaranteed access to qwerty, everywhere I go.
Citation needed. Of my 2 friends that have tried, neither have been able to reach their 'standard' typing speed after 1+ years of dvorak. Maybe they didn't try hard enough?
There's a public trail of reddit comments where Altman all but owns up to finagling board seats and ownership rights for Reddit many years ago. This is how he operates.
My theory: a lot of software we build is the supposed solve for a 'crappy spreadsheet'. a) that isnt' much of a moat, b) you're watching generalization of software happen in real time.
Crappy spreadsheet is just the codification of business processes. Those are inherently messy and there's lots of assumptions, lots of edge cases. That's why spreadsheets tend towards crappy on a long enough timeline. It's a fundamentally messy problem.
Spreadsheets are an abstraction over a messy reality, lossy. They were already generalizing reality.
Now we generalize the generalization. It is this lossy reality that people are worried about with AI in HN.
I think it's better to use Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey. Rules are deterministic, you have full control, and you don't have to worry about monetization or malicious data collection in the future.
There have been multiple incidents in the past of extensions like these being sold off to sketchy third party companies which then use the popularity to insert malware into folks' machines.
I really recommend against this. The AI spin doesn't add much since most sites have had rules that work for years, they don't change that often. Please don't build up this type of dependence on a company for regular browsing.
reply