HN comments have always been like that, or rather "here's my approach to circumvent that annoyance".
What's your alternative? I prefer that style over comments that stop already at "I hate that", as curiosity should be more than an expression of a dismissive opinion.
You wish. It is becoming harder every day to find genuine comments or technical insights at the top of HN sections instead of blind love/hate for trendy topics.
Even among the "genuine" comments most of them are just people spewing things because the monkey brain has determined that it likes it when the number in the top right goes up and has figured out what kind of things to spew to make it go up (dare I say encouraging this state of affairs is the reason some platforms choose to keep score in such a manner).
Does it really matter whether you're reading something written by an AI shill, a human shill or a human (or AI) who's repeating the shillery? You're being shilled at all the same.
> Basically seems to come down it “it can be abused”. But many things can be abused.
This isn't your life pro tip to get you some additional 20% discount on the next McDonald's order, or some ethical kind of abuse that gets you your needed treatment, because the healthcare system is just too nonexistent to care, though.
Any criticism against the use of surveillance technology needs to resort to the rhetoric of COULD, because any other choice of words would put the final nail in any surveillance companies' coffin, with evidence from either whistleblowers or circumvented security issues.
It's certainly hard to look behind the curtains - fair, but in a world where the top companies are selling advertisements by accumulating and correlating large-scale tracking information from every person on earth, regardless whether they're users of the products or not, it should be much harder to shrug off such a possibility as dystopian nonsense than to see it as the fucked up reality (circumvention of fundamental rights included) that it is.
> Website copyright is out of date by two years...
Can you explain how a copyright can be "out of date by two years"?
I always thought the copyright notice should reflect the year of creation, and that it's actually bad (from a legal POV) to always show the current year through scripting.
The problem is that the website says they are still working out the logistics details. If the company has been around for 2 years they should have figured that out and updated the page by now.
I think this view is too reductionist, as people can (and usually do) debate more than one topic at a time. The problem is that technological dependence isn't gaining enough precaution when commodity products are being discussed.
What worries me is that it's a real global problem in all of our non-autocratic societies. On a positive note, I can see how this is actually becoming a common understanding and gaining traction, as hyped AI products are seen by some as 3rd-party- or SaaS-killers. It seems like we know how to differentiate between independence and dependence, and evaluate any risks affiliated with such a decision. But it baffles me that this differentiation manages to float as some ironic stream in our Zeitgeist, and just barely manages to be taken seriously.
It feels like this era of hyper-individualism requires too much attention from each individual and favors those that can afford to outsource the work. While that stabilizes the role of society as a system, I feel like this is most worrisome for the less privileged in any low-trust environment.
That almost seems like a deliberate strategy by some "genius" PM... a lot less bug reports for specific products with actionable items for their teams, in favor of more insufficient reports to blame the one creating the report instead.
HN comments have always been like that, or rather "here's my approach to circumvent that annoyance".
What's your alternative? I prefer that style over comments that stop already at "I hate that", as curiosity should be more than an expression of a dismissive opinion.
reply