Not exactly on topic, but I have to endorse mise; it's a really, really great tool that solves a number of different problems.
Example: I was recently working on a large project that needed a specific version of Python, and there's a lot of ways to solve that, but mise was an easy and robust one. But also, the project needed a bunch of different tools to build it, deploy it, do local dev, perform certain maintenance tasks like rotating secrets, work through certain operational runbooks, etc., and mise was an easy and robust way to solve that too. Once you know everyone on the team will have the same tools available, if a runbook would be simpler if you could assume everyone has jq installed, well, just add it your the project's mise config, and now they do. And then when I switched to working on a Java service, and then later a Node service, well, obviously mise was an easy and robust solution there too.
By contrast, I made an effort a year or two back to adopt nix, which (despite starting from a very different place) solves a lot of similar problems, but found it a bit daunting (large, complex, poorly documented, and felt hard to partially adopt), and while I love the concept of nix, as a practical matter I ended up abandoning the effort. But mise was really easy to understand, adopt, and progressively add to an existing project without unduly impacting other team members. (Example: Mise will read existing verion manager configs from tools like sdkman, which makes adopting it over time easier.)
It's got to the point now where I'm using mise in place of Homebrew or other system level package managers for basically all CLI tools. Which feels weird when I think about it, but mise genuinely just feels like the better solution. If mise has a flaw, I haven't stubbed my toe on it yet.
> Jani Patokallio runs gyrovague.net in order to harass people who provide useful public services.
I mean...investigating who runs secretive yet popular websites is a useful public service, generally called "journalism". And your comments in this thread could be seen as an attempt to harass Jani.
I do not, to be clear, think you're doing anything morally wrong, but I'm also not sure I see how you can draw a bright line between your actions and Jani's. By the rather stretched logic and loose standards you've been using in these comments, it seems like you run your HN account to harass people who provide useful public services, no?
I'm absolutely open to the argument that Jani has does something wrong, but nothing you've said has really even accused them of anything.
If you want to define doxing narrowly (as it was historically) then I would agree that all (or nearly all) such cases are wrong, but this is by no means clearly doxing. If you want to define doxing widely (as is common lately), then I'll accept this is clearly an example of doxing, but note that there's nothing inherently wrong with doxing.
Just saying "doxing" does not establish that the underlying actions are immoral, and so it does not follow that the target not appreciating it is relevant. If I take the last parking place in a crowded lot, the driver behind me certainly won't appreciate it, but I have no obligation to give it up. If you think Jani has done something incomparable to taking a parking place, you need to make the case.
> When Amazon can buy stuff on your own website thats out of stock for wholesale prices without your knowledge, it's time to get your shit together. Your shop software is at least misconfigured.
I really wish the article had dug into that more, because it made very little sense.
Odd story. If you strip out the "Amazon" and "AI" stuff, the core seems to be that there's a tech company offering a service called Buy For Me which crawls various merchants who operate their own storefronts, lists the products they find for Buy For Me's users, and have a button the users can press which...buys the product.
Which is a little odd, and the value is questionable, but fundamentally seems...fine? You're a merchant, you're selling pencils on the internet, people are buying your pencils from you. And historically the way this might have been built would be something like a desktop application that users install, and which then goes and loads websites, displays them, fills in payment info, etc. Which of course is exactly what the web browser does already.
And all of the complaints about how it should be opt-in also feel odd. If you install WooCommerce and put a storefront up on the public internet, you've pretty obviously opted in to "selling your products on the internet". You don't need to tell Firefox that it's okay for people to use it to buy your stuff!
Of course, this isn't a desktop app, it's agentic AI run by Amazon, which certainly makes it feel different, but I'm not entirely sure how different it should make our analysis.
But also, the story raises a bunch of interesting questions and then doesn't answer any of them:
> Chua also received at least several orders for products that were either out of stock or no longer existed on her website.
How exactly did this happen? The story is that the orders are being placed through the normal storefront, right? So how exactly?
Or:
> Gorin sells wholesale through a password-protected section of her website, where retailers must submit resale or exemption certificates so orders are properly exempted from sales tax. She said she was still able to complete a “Buy for Me” purchase of a product pulled from her wholesale site despite never opting into the program — a scenario that could expose her business to tax liability if individual shoppers were able to place tax-exempt orders. Gorin also worries that surfacing wholesale pricing could undermine profit margins, allow competitors to undercut her prices or bypass minimum order requirements designed to keep wholesale sales viable.
That's just begging for an explanation. Is Amazon is somehow using stolen credentials to obtain price information? Or is Goren mistaken and the info isn't password protected at all? (And if not, why not?)
I'd also be interested in unpacking a bit more the legal and contractual implications of agreements like Mochi Kids has signed. The brand apparently doesn't allow its products on Amazon, and doesn't allow partners like Mochi Kids to sell on Amazon, but...Michi Kids isn't? Mechanically someone is buying the products at retail and effectively relisting them. Which...I dunno, feels legal? Is any agreement actually being violated here? Does the brand have a course of action? Does Mochi Kids have an actual legal obligation to opt out? Does Amazon have a legal obligation to let vendors opt out? Is Amazon legally buying anything from Mochi Kids, or is the customer the person using Amazon? Given the payment info being used is the customer's, I'm not sure Amazon has a commercial relationship with the brand or the vendor?
And so on. It feels like too much of the story is being carried by it being about Amazon and AI, which means the author felt fine just glossing over the details.
I have grave reservations about AI art, but...nope, that doesn't follow.
It's true that there are a lot of (human) artists in the US. (Something like 80 million, broadly defined.) And it's also true that the art and media each artist views shapes the art they create, including art and media we see quite incidentally - graffiti, ads on bus shelters, paintings in the hallways of office buildings. And in the course of the year each of us will view thousands upon thousands of such pieces of art and meida.
So if we had a licensing scheme such that every artist had to make a non-negligible payment to the rights holder of every bit of media they view, then artists, collectively, would be liable for hundreds of billions of dollars in royalty payments. 80m aritsts * 1k pieces of media * $5 license fee is $400b; that's just basic math.
This calculation is, very obviously, not an argument that all art is theft. It's just some math about a hypothetical licensing scheme, and that's all a18n were doing too.
You may think (and I'm inclined to agree) that a human paging through an artist's ArtStation profile is fundamentally different than an LLM using it as training data, but that's an argument not addressed by a18n in that quote.
I mean...it was intended for everyone to use, and the intended use was to avoid taxes (in this one, very limited context). And professional investors are part of "everyone".
Example: I was recently working on a large project that needed a specific version of Python, and there's a lot of ways to solve that, but mise was an easy and robust one. But also, the project needed a bunch of different tools to build it, deploy it, do local dev, perform certain maintenance tasks like rotating secrets, work through certain operational runbooks, etc., and mise was an easy and robust way to solve that too. Once you know everyone on the team will have the same tools available, if a runbook would be simpler if you could assume everyone has jq installed, well, just add it your the project's mise config, and now they do. And then when I switched to working on a Java service, and then later a Node service, well, obviously mise was an easy and robust solution there too.
By contrast, I made an effort a year or two back to adopt nix, which (despite starting from a very different place) solves a lot of similar problems, but found it a bit daunting (large, complex, poorly documented, and felt hard to partially adopt), and while I love the concept of nix, as a practical matter I ended up abandoning the effort. But mise was really easy to understand, adopt, and progressively add to an existing project without unduly impacting other team members. (Example: Mise will read existing verion manager configs from tools like sdkman, which makes adopting it over time easier.)
It's got to the point now where I'm using mise in place of Homebrew or other system level package managers for basically all CLI tools. Which feels weird when I think about it, but mise genuinely just feels like the better solution. If mise has a flaw, I haven't stubbed my toe on it yet.