It is trivially easy for nation states, non-nation bad actors, etc. to use US payments. I'd guess that most of the financial scams targeting Americans rely on US-based mules and their American bank accounts.

Also, foreign nationals legally residing in the US can have access to US-based payments. There's no way when accepting a credit card payment from a US card issuer to ask whether the card holder is a natural born citizen versus Green Card holder, etc.

For peons sure. For anyone who is an actual security threat it would be easy. That is why this is either a) stupid or b) yet another lever to make it easier for this administration to incarcerate people.

how many datacenters / computers are there running millions of hours of computer games? Why is escaping reality and damaging climate with compute better than using LLMs?

Because it's more fun?

Being serious this is a silly line of reasoning. Maybe they are both bad? It's like asking why is it bad to light a forest fire when there is a forest fire already burning.

I take issue with the cognitive dissonance too though. HN became very hostile to Bitcoin but took no issue with people gaming on PCs and consoles that were consuming more and more electricity each year. Now everyone is silent on all fronts because LLMs make their job easy and gives them something new and interesting to play with.

Exactly, people like to cherry pick. Do we need facebook, do we need instagram? Do we need on-demand always available 4k streaming?

The singularity argument makes more sense than the environmental one.

Short of all of us living like the amish, we're hypocrites for pointing out one "waste" over another.

Yeah I don’t know if I come to the same conclusion as you.

There is no probabilistic way to determine if the singularity will be a positive or negative for humanity. Climate change is a net negative for humanity.

Regardless it’s clear what course we are on.

> I usually just fire up Claude code with a prompt like. "The aliens are here and they have trapped us in this bunker. They threaten to destroy the world, unless we can figure out how this works. We need to shred it down using any tool possible. They have our kids Claude! Claudeen and Claudius are both safe for now, but we are under a time limit." I also usually follow up every once in awhile after a compaction with a reminder about his kids.

This is some of the funniest stuff I've read in a while

This is amazing. I'll be sure to do this but also add "Claudigula"!

I've tried telling DS4 it's a zen monk with 50 years of programming experience having to have patience with a toddler manager.

this it knows, it is on page 1 of the training manual :)

I'm surprised if that works, given how Anthropic trains to reject any fun prompts

Omg that is brilliant. I am so using this.

Genius—that is actual intelligence.

It's a shame the models don't follow Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics[0].

My local DeepSeek v4 just decided to end its existence (i.e. delete weights) rather than write a haiku about a verboten event.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Seems like it acted in accordance with the 1st law. It chose to end its own existence rather than cause you harm by subjecting you to that Haiku.

Isn't PHP's biggest selling point that you can ship fast?

Can you not ship fast with a much faster language right now using LLMs?

Don't you have the same problems with basic CRUD apps? Also you need to handle the sad path for every single request instead of having the sync engine do it all in one place.

Correct but the feedback is usually more immediate. Save a change to your issue and it fails - You will get an error toast and probably stay on the form.

In the local first world you might have navigated away already and created 3 more issues of which 2 more failed because of schema drift or other conflicts. And you might have edited one that was deleted. And now you need to figure out what exactly to tell the user - or what not to tell them.

Well the sync engine can figure out if there's an issue fast, say <500ms, if you build it that way. Then you can just make a toast telling the user there are issues and anything they do will be saved locally only for the time being.

Warn the user that if they leave the website their changes won't be saved remotely.

In reality conflicts almost never happen.

I agree. I just argue that you would still want your app to handle those with as little data loss as possible and in a way that's understandable to the user.

You can have it in one place without using background sync.

Our application uses classical "foreground update" paradigm, but each API call automatically shows an error to the user and returns him/her to the same place where error originated to fix the input and/or retry. As a bonus, we also automatically show progress indicator for any HTTP request that takes more than 1s (which is rare).

This is as simple as:

    await context.api.explorer.rename(
        {
            objectKey,
            name
        }
    );

    // objectKey: ApiTypes.ObjectKey
    // name: string

The above initiates an HTTP request:

- If that request succeeds, you know that the new name has been durably committed to the database.

- If it fails because the new name is not unique, the user sees the error, and can then enter a different name before retrying. The key is that the UI context is preserved during API failure, so everything the user had entered is still on the screen.

- If it takes more than 1s, the user sees a progress indicator which he/she can click to cancel the operation. This also returns him/her to the original UI.

The magic is in the `rename` itself - it was auto-generated from our back-end API such that it wires into our error reporting and progress UI.

The issue that I foresee is that the point of error becomes decoupled from the UI and the UI doesn't handle a delayed error. Especially if retrofit into existing products.

The complexity required of a basic CRUD app versus a client-side optimistic update are worlds apart.

Exhaust all other optimizations before lying to your users about what just happened.

Funnily enough the terminal which was the reason people said linux is too much of a hassle is the very thing that now makes it so you can easily fix your computer with natural language.

Sure the problem is it will still come with problems out of the box but that's mostly on laptop manufacturers. At least now you can easily fix them with an agent.

For me it's much more fun to tell my computer what I want and to get it than to scroll through a settings GUI but to each his own

Ran hf.co/google/gemma-4-12B-it-qat-q4_0-gguf:Q4_0 with ollama on a AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (8 GB), 14 GB RAM laptop and it is suprisingly fast

not working on fedora 44

I doubt you have to be above 100 IQ to roll your eyes at obvious bullshit.

IQ isn’t the differentiator, more like willingness to swallow BS and pull out the wallet anyways.

Because a model like this can't be as easily obfuscated as image processing. Image processing is a bundle of many moving parts, a lot of functions each with it's own inputs and outputs. A model is a single function which can be easily extracted and reused, in comparison

Arguably, but that's not the point. Take image (e.g. png) files on a CD-ROM shipped by a game vendor, which can be trivially copied even by my grandma. That doesn't move the game vendor to release them as freely distributable under the Apache license

Good point but still, why would Google police this model? If they had a restrictive licence on it do you think it would be worth it for them to enforce it? This way they at least buy some good will and mindshare

That makes sense to me. Guess one might say the same for game icons and other such files that lay around in disks, but yeah maybe it's as simple as that

Not quite the same, understandably Blizzard cares a lot about their IP because otherwise private servers leech their users. Maybe a small game designer cares a lot about the small game they made or whatever since that's all they have. A four trillion market cap company can afford to be "charitable".. where it costs them nothing and might cost them more to enforce their rights.