We need a new one: "Where someone is using a vibe-coded internal tool made by the creative department that keeps needing bug fixes, there's a start up waiting to happen."
This project is not clever, interesting, insightful, or beneficial to humanity in any way, save to remind us of what world we are slowly creating by our continued insistence that AI is a good thing.
Exactly. People are getting so excited that all this stuff is possible, and forgetting that we are burning through innumerable finite resources just to prove something is possible.
They were too concerned with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should.
I can't believe that in the face of all the other problems facing humanity, we are allowing any amount of resources to be spent on this. I cannot even see this justifiable under the guise of entertainment. It is beneath our human dignity to read this slop, and to continue tolerating these kinds of projects as "innovation" or "pushing the AI frontier" is disingenuous at best, and existentially fatal at worst.
Do they have microphones inside the car? How do you know? That "feeling" of privacy probably encourages people to talk more openly, which if there are microphones inside...
The proof is that humans do it all the time and that you do it inside your head as well. People need to stop with this absurd level of rampant skepticism that makes them doubt their own basic functions.
Companies more likely to want to save money on labor costs (employing many h1bs) are also likely to want to save money on Tooling costs, by using safe options like MSFT stuff, rather than finding better tools.
Also yes, due to availability and various other reasons, H1bs, particularly from India, seem more likely to use a MSFT stack.
Surely this was heavily inspired by Runescape? The click to move (including cursor animation on click), camera angles and graphics, chat text colour and position etc. all give me huge Runescape (Old School Runescape) vibes.
Congrats on launching though, looks like a fun project.
I think software companies should offer both. A subscription gets you access to any version of the software as long as you keep paying. Or you can purchase a particular version.
Unfortunately though, this is very hard to achieve with Web based products, since then they would need to retain copies and host copies of every version. This to me just highlights how Web based software makes ownership harder, and is why I will always preference software I can download and backup and store how I please, etc.
Well, that just justifies my decision to never buy a TV. Yes yes, I own a smartphone already. But I've tried to lock it down as much as possible by deactivating some services, limiting which apps I install. There will always be some tracking if you own a phone by the carrier anyway.
But TV's are becoming a whole other thing. I also just hate free-to-air TV, hate having a black void in the living room begging to be switched on, and I hate the effect it has on kids. A projector that only comes out on special movie nights is more than enough. And a laptop to watch Netflix or something with my wife is better than having a TV.
The Wall Street Journal and Twitter are not equivalent.
Due to the monopoly of control on social media right now, companies like Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are the new public spaces. Due to their unique position as monopolies over the popular communication mediums of the day, they are able to make decisions about what very large segments of the population have access to. Google even moreso.
If the WSJ was one of 2 or 3 news publications in the entire world that people got their information from, them choosing to not a run a story or firing a particular journalist would be a big deal.
> no one is preventing you from standing in a public place
Social media is now the equivalent of standing in a public place. Times have changed. The town crier that used to tell people that latest headline? That's now the Facebook news feed. Public library/coffee shop where people can go discuss whatever new subversive political idea they've had? That's now online chat rooms.
Sticking our heads in the sand and thinking that the Internet is anything other than the new public square is disingenuous. People need to wake up and realise that at present, the "public space" once protected by our rights has become almost entirely controlled by private monopolies.
No, they aren't equating mass shooting and political candidates. They are responding to the assertion that political ideology isn't a protected class.
If you want to defend the 1st amendment rights of companies to choose their customers, you must apply that across the board, or suggest the laws be changed.
If companies can exercise their 1st amendment rights to shut down political ideology in this instance (and if you think that's fine), then to be consistent you need to defend it elsewhere. Shutting down political opponents, choosing which political ads to run, choosing which investigations to allow in search results, etc. And censoring Elizabeth Warren is a perfectly valid example of how companies could exercise their rights, if indeed you think those rights should exist.