For my agency this won't replace Figma or designers. It's just a really useful tool to express yourself and communicate intent.
Before these tools, when a client wanted a specific section built, we'd spend hours hunting references across the web. The output always ended up feeling like a mesh of 2-3 sites, never fully unique. Then we'd burn more time explaining the intent to the client's designers and devs, usually with multiple rounds because words don't convey layout well.
Now we throw a quick mockup together in Claude or Lovable and send it. The designer gets the idea in 30 seconds instead of a 45-minute call, then pushes it further with their own taste and the client's branding.
It's not replacing designers. Most clients don't know what they want until they see it. These tools collapse that feedback loop from weeks to minutes, so the designer actually spends their time on the parts that need human taste, not on decoding a vague brief.
Half of planned US data center builds have been delayed or canceled, growth limited by shortages of power infrastructure and parts from China — the AI build-out flips the breakers
The dark mode looks better. In the light mode they have to improve the contrast. The lines in the visualisations are almost invisible, also the data table on the left
I have a love/hate relationship with WordPress. I prefer it over any other CMS for reasons I can't fully explain. Probably nostalgia. I love the editor, the sidebar, the ability to find niche plugins in an endless marketplace, and how easy it is to get a site running.
What I don't love is how insecure it is. You're entirely dependent on plugins (if you're not a developer), and if WordPress updates and a plugin goes inactive, you're sitting on a vulnerability. It adds real stress for something that's just supposed to be a fun personal site.
I stopped building on it two years ago, even though I still like it more than Webflow and most alternatives I've tried. It's a bit sad.
This feels like one of those stories that spreads because it’s too good not to.
People see that Claude is a top contributor in OpenAI related repo and jump to conclusions about what it means
Same with the Ballmer/Mac story. It sort of happened, but not really how people tell it. The Mac was there, but he wasn’t actually using it the way the story implies.
A couple years back John Reilly posted on HN "How I ruined my SEO" and I helped him fix it for free. He wrote about the whole thing here: https://johnnyreilly.com/how-we-fixed-my-seo
Happy to do the same for you if you want.
The quickest win in your case: map all the backlinks the .net site got (happy to pull this for you), then email every publication that linked to it. "Hey, you covered NanoClaw but linked to a fake site, here's the real one." You'd be surprised how many will actually swap the link. That alone could flip things.
Beyond that there's some technical SEO stuff on nanoclaw.dev that would help - structured data, schema, signals for search engines and LLMs. Happy to walk you through it.
update: ok this is getting more traction than I expected so let me give some practical stuff.
1. Google Search Console - did you add and verify nanoclaw.dev there? If not, do it now and submit your sitemap. Basic but critical.
2. I checked the fake site and it actually doesn't have that many backlinks, so the situation is more winnable than it looks.
3. Your GitHub repo has tons of high quality backlinks which is great. Outreach to those places, tell the story. I'm sure a few will add a link to your actual site. That alone makes you way more resilient to fakers going forward. This is only happening because everything is so new. Here's a list with all the backlinks pointing to your repo:
4. Open social profiles for the project - Twitter/X, LinkedIn page if you want. This helps search engines build a knowledge graph around NanoClaw. Then add Organization and sameAs schema markup to nanoclaw.dev connecting all the dots (your site, the GitHub repo, the social profiles). This is how you tell Google "these all belong to the same entity."
5. One more thing - you had a chance to link to nanoclaw.dev from this HN thread but you linked to your tweet instead. Totally get it, but a strong link from a front page HN post with all this traffic and engagement would do real work for your site's authority. If it's not crossing any rule (specific use case here so maybe check with the mods haha) drop a comment here with a link to nanoclaw.dev. I don't think anyone here would mind if it will get you few steps closer towards winning that fake site
Fair point. This is more mindset than case study. The proof is still being built across client work. Though I'd say the same was true for SEO in the early days. People speculating on what made Google rank certain sites higher, what made pages index faster, etc. The frameworks came before the proven playbooks
Here's the original title (was too long for HN):
What if ADHD risk isn’t fixed at birth, but shaped by how early environments interact with a child’s sensitivity?
I guess the fact that Netflix, Disney and others paying smart TV companies to be there have big part of reducing the price. When I think about it, most of the remote controls I saw in recent years have Youtube/Netflix/ buttons on it also
