Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | chromanoid's comments login

yeah, I totally agree.

It's like there was a shift in goals after the author made the title. Maybe explaining the basics was so much fun, that the initial idea got lost... I also don't think knowing how a crt monitor works is instrumental for people who want to make software. The domain is cool, but it doesn't match the content. whatissoftware.com might be better.

when it is explained how pixel, gpu or llm work, I would at least expect some intro to Von-Neumann-Architecture.


there are so many ways to record things... for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu maybe the need to keep it clean just makes it more important to a society...

I guess the main reason behind this move is platform capitalism. It's an easy way to cut off grassroots internet.

If that were true, we would not have Let's Encrypt and tools which can give us certificates in 30 seconds flat once we prove ownership.

The real reason was Snowden. The jump in HTTPS adoption after the Snowden leaks was a virtual explosion; and set HTTPS as the standard for all new services. From there, it was just the rollout. (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/10-years-after-snowden...)

(Edit because I'm posting too fast, for the reply):

> How do you enjoy being dependent on a 3rd party (even a well intentioned one) for being on the internet?

Everyone is reliant on a 3rd party for the internet. It's called your ISP. They also take complaints and will shut you down if they don't like what you're doing. If you are using an online VPS, you have a second 3rd party, which also takes complaints, can see everything you do, and will also shut you down if they don't like what you're doing; and they have to, because they have an ISP to keep happy themselves. Networks integrating with 3rd party networks is literally the definition of the internet.


How do you enjoy being dependent on a 3rd party (even a well intentioned one) for being on the internet?

Let's Encrypt... Cloudflare... useful services right? Or just another barrier to entry because you need to set up and maintain them?


You are always dependent on a 3rd party to some extent: DNS registration, upstream ISP(s), cloud / hosting providers, etc.

And now your list has 2 more items in it …

Does it? I need to get a cert from somewhere, whether that's Lets Encrypt for free, or some other company that charges $300/year for effectively the same thing.

I dunno. Self-hosting w/o automation was feasible. Now you have to automate. It will lead to a huge amount of link rot or at least something very similar. There will be solutions but setting up a page e2e gets more and more complicated. In the end you want a service provider who takes care of it. Maybe not the worst thing, but what kind of security issues are we talking about? There is still certificate revocation...

Have you tried caddy? Each TLS protected site winds up being literally a couple lines in a config file. Renewals are automatic. Unless you have a network / DNS problem, it is set and forget. It is far simpler than dealing with manual cert renewals, downloading the certificates, restarting your web server (or forgetting to...)

Yes, but only for internal stuff. I prefer traefik at the moment. But my point is more about how people use wix over free webspace and so on. While I don't agree with many of Jonathan Blow's arguments, but news like this make me think of his talk "Preventing the collapse of civilization" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko

Traefik without certmanager is just as self inflicted a wound. It’s literally designed to handle this for you.

I have to use an internal cert out of my control anyways. For personal projects I switched to web hosters after some bad experience. But I vividly remember setting up my vps as a teen. while I understand the reasoning it's always sad to see those simpler times go away. and sometimes I don't see the reasoning behind and suspect it's because some c-suites don't see big harm, since it ought to make things safer and those people that are left in the dust don't count anyway...

How does this cut off the grassroots internet?

It makes end to end responsibility more cumbersome. There were days people just stored MS Frontpage output on their home server.

Many folks switched to Lets Encrypt ages ago. Certificates are way easier to acquire now than they were in "Frontpage' days. I remember paying 100's of dollars and sending a fax for "verification."

Do they offer any long term commitment for the API though. I remembered that they were blocking old cert manager clients that were hammering their server. You can't automate that (as it could be unsafe, like Solarwinds) and they didn't give one year window to do it manually either.

You do have a point. I still feel that upgrading your client is less work than manual cert renewals.

I agree, but I think the pendulum just went too far on the tradeoff scale.

I've done the work to set up, by hand, a self-hosted Linux server that uses an auto-renewing Let's Encrypt cert and it was totally fine. Just read some documentation.

There are very convenient tools to do https easily these days, e.g. Caddy. You can use it to reverse proxy any http server and it will do the cert stuff for you automatically.

Ofc, but you have to be quite techsavy to know this and to set this up. It's also cumbersome in many low-tech situations. There is certificate revocation, I would really like to see the threat model here. I am not even sure if automation helps or just shifts the threat vector to certificate issuing.

OpenRewrite is quite nice and has a great collection of recipes for migrating, e.g. from javax to jakarta: https://docs.openrewrite.org/recipes/java/migrate

There are some quirks you have to work around for big projects since the free tooling has some limitations.


Great writeup :)

It's like this https://geek-and-poke.com/geekandpoke/2017/8/13/just-happene... but actually true, which is really bad for mental health :D


This is different. It's nonstop, personalized, and built to keep you hooked. It's not about freaking out, just about setting some boundaries like we do with anything that can go overboard.


I think China is on the right track here. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/kid-mode-guidelines/ While I don't like the privacy implications, I like the screen time limits China establishes. Social media and internet must be treated with much care.

It's like a candy store open 24/7 - completely free and always within reach. Even adults have a hard time to resist TikTok and YT Shorts and the like.

The Internet has changed since I was a kid browsing through GeoCities webrings and the Yahoo Directory while searching with AltaVista. Generations of technology enthusiasts have to acknowledge that the internet of the past is no more and cannot be brought to our children as such.

The temptations we faced then were nothing compared to what children today have to resist.

Just as many countries regulate advertisements aimed at minors, we need to start regulating screen time for kids - before they get pulled into the vortex of influencers and endlessly accessible, mentally corrosive entertainment.


It turns out that industry regulation can actually be a good thing sometimes.


There’s nothing wrong with moderation in moderation.


Always not sometimes.

Lead in fuel

Normal product warranty

ingridient list

The industry has few selfregularly motivations to regulate itself. If they do, they do it after customer complains and others stealing there thunder but than i t would be too late for a few


> Always not sometimes.

always if objectively non lobby-corrupt thought throught

if regulation is to much captured by lobby-corruption or ignore facts because of ideology thinking(:1) it can be very bad, then you can for example easily end up with what I like to call "red hearing regulation". A regulation which doesn't fix the problem at all but if you are naive looks like it might and prevent any further regulations from being done because it's already there. Or you can end up with monopoly-like companies cutting of access to markets for competition.

---

(:1) to be clear I mean the innocent interpretation of that phrase, not the one a lot of right wing propaganda in many countries is using regular where it often means "take this out of context potentially outright lying statements and treat them as obvious facts while claiming all other facts are ideologist driven fake news and then complain why no one want to have fact based discussions with you anymore"


> sometimes

/s


// Even adults have a hard time to resist //

and here we all are.


The cratering Chinese birthrate is a pretty strong argument that what China's doing isn't working out well for young people. The only reason China limited screen time was so that kids would spend more time studying, because the government wants kids to focus on slaving their lives away in miserable jobs with 80-hour workweeks to keep the GDP growing.


> cratering Chinese birthrate is a pretty strong argument that what China's doing isn't working out well for young people.

yes but that is partially unrelated and has a lot to do with

- one child politics lead to abrupt fall of new young unemployed people

- so the reaming people have to work more

- and as they need to pay rent for the old people even more more more


The 80-hour workweek isn’t some grand anomaly; it’s simply the natural outcome of the fierce competition in China’s market. If you want a good job, you have to give it your all—because if you don’t, there will always be someone smarter, faster, and more determined waiting to take your place. It’s not personal; it’s just how the system works.

Yes, the government has made efforts to regulate this, but the root issue remains: if an economy can’t provide enough well-paid jobs, no amount of intervention will fundamentally change the situation. The pressure will persist—it’s a structural reality, not a moral failing.

As for the term "slave," it’s a dramatic and, frankly, amusing choice of words. It perfectly captures a certain U.S. perspective on China, one that’s often shaped by narrow assumptions and ideological filters. The lens of "communism" becomes a convenient, if overly simplistic, way to frame a complex society. It’s not wrong to critique, but sometimes the framing says more about the critic than the subject itself.


> The 80-hour workweek isn’t some grand anomaly; it’s simply the natural outcome of the fierce competition in China’s market. If you want a good job, you have to give it your all—because if you don’t, there will always be someone smarter, faster, and more determined waiting to take your place. It’s not personal; it’s just how the system works.

this is a very long way of saying "too many people"


I think they are on the right track in the sense that "the problem needs a regulatory fix", but not in the sense that "putting time limits on kid media consumption" is quite the right way to go.

There is quite a bit of analysis out there how to trigger addictive behavior for anything from news site to games. Mainly so that they can maximally abuse this.

I think the right way would be to regulate that, not so dissimilar to how we regulate drugs.

Which yes can, in a roundabout way, bring us back to age restricting some otherwise seemingly harmless games.

But its in generally a different approach as it also pulls in the adult, general public awareness both for childs and adult, tries to also reduce drug, eh dopamine fix, consumption in adults etc.

E.g. if auto scrolling short are classified as addictive similar to drugs (through not quite the same) you then can e.g. require YT to allow people to disable shorts, or "auto scrolling, swipe next" display of shorts. Or limit how they can be on search results etc. This probably will also help with addictive gamba games frequently bankrupting adults etc.

> Even adults have a hard time to resist TikTok and YT Shorts and the like.

I removed them from YT using ad block, through there isn't a way to do so on a phone/tablet without using 3rd party YT apps :/


>but not in the sense that "putting time limits on kid media consumption" is quite the right way to go.

Why not? Isn't this what sensible parents should be doing? Supervising and regulating how much time their children spend online, playing videogames, watching TV, doing homework, being sedentary, eating junk food, etc? Especially in this age of parental controls and surveillance-ware on all digital devices, it's easier than ever to monitor what your kids are up to.

Should entire societies grant the government unlimited power over online media, online speech, kids and families just because some dumb parents hand their kids a blank iPad and their credit card and let them sit around all day on it frying their brain? What about regulating just those parents instead for being that stupid? Truthfully, a lot of the people having kids are unfit to be parents.

I do believe that targeted online advertising needs to be regulated ASAP. Ad-tech is a plague on society.


> Isn't this what sensible parents should be doing?

yes _parents_, but we are speaking about state actions (which could require companies to give parents tools to help them handle this this (:1))

and that affects parents, and teachers, and what is tough, and how society in general treats such things, and which things get which age rating etc. We need to convince society that this dopamine cycles are similar bad as drugs, only forcing it down their throat is not going to end well

and I was also focusing a lot in the comment on from which angle states approach that actions

> targeted online advertising

while that is a problem, it isn't the core problem here

the core problem is dark patterns intentionally designed to make apps/sites maximally addictive

even if we didn't had any ads at all many apps(and co) would likely still do that, so that they can e.g. sell more micro transaction (like think 0.2ct per short watched, small enough to seem nothing but if you doom scroll for two+ hours every day adds up (~120$/€ a year). Heck even without micro transactions it still does make "statistics look good" some it probably still would be applied quite often.


What do you mean by "demand"?

https://bewerbung.com/lebenslauf-ohne-bewerbungsfoto/

> Eine Bewerbung ohne Foto zu verschicken, ist in den vergangenen Jahren zu einem regelrechten Trend geworden. Bei vielen Personalern genießen Lebensläufe ohne Bewerbungsfoto daher eine hohe Akzeptanz [...]


Disclaimer: I’m bad about remembering faces. Every photo with a name below helps me a lot.

We shall not copy everything from America.

And the site goes on…

    Trotzdem ist die Bewerbung ohne Foto nach wie vor eher die Ausnahme als die Regel. Denn ein sympathisches Bild erweckt einen guten ersten Eindruck. Somit wird Deine Bewerbung mit einer positiveren Grundeinstellung gesichtet, was zum Vorteil werden kann.

    Richtig gestaltet, drückt das Bewerberbild außerdem Professionalität aus, lässt Deine Persönlichkeit erkennen und verdeutlicht, dass Du zur Unternehmenskultur passt. Grundlegende Informationen wie Dein Geschlecht oder Deine Herkunft lassen sich aus Deinem Lebenslauf ohnehin oft ableiten, beispielsweise aus Deinem Namen. Zudem finden die Personaler im Internet meist schnell ein Foto von Dir, wenn gewünscht.
The company will anyway see you, if you’re lucky. Your name, birthdate, education and address (people often underestimate the address) tell a lot. I don’t care about colors of hair, eyes or skin and the scar across the check is at least something which allows me to recognize a person.


In my humble European opinion, you shouldn't be including your date of birth or home address either. Full name is just about acceptable.


<irony> And a cell phone number from a throw away phone?

Of course for every application a new one! </irony>


> We shall not copy everything from America.

You should copy not needing photos on CVs. Doing so introduces an unacceptable risk of bias.


Not all bias is bad.


It is when it's based purely on physical appearance in the context of evaluating job applicants.


I'd say that depends on the business area, the small "Krauter" around the corner probably requires a photo. But as this is not the target group of this project, I would argue that images are not really required.


I meant it as more of a nice to have


Just wanted to point out that I absolutely share your view here. I would like to add that the concept of virtualization and the required representation of computation makes substrate-independent consciousness rather absurd.

To me the only explanation for consciousness I find appealing is panprotopsychism.


May still only yield a philosophical zombie. You can simulate gravity but never move something with its simulation.


If I have a 9-DOF sensor in meatspace and am feeding that to a "simulation" that helps a PID coalesce faster then my simulation can move something. When I tell my computer to simulate blackbody radiation...

What you said sounds good, but I don't think it's philosophically robust.


I think you misunderstood my point. A simulation is never the actual simulated phenomenon. When you understand consciousness as a "physical" phenomenon (e.g. as in most forms of panprotopsychism), believing in being able to create it by computation is like believing in being able to generate gravity by computation.


we're out of my wheelhouse but it feels to me that entropy and gravity are fundamentally linked and a quick search shows i'm not alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

read this as: literally creating gravity by simulating it hard enough.


I don't see how computation itself can be a plausible cause here. The physical representation of the computation might be the cause, but the computation itself is not substrate-independent in its possible effect. That is again my point.


I'm arguing with an AI about this too, because my firm belief is that the act of changing a 1 to a 0 in a computer must radiate heat - a 1 is a voltage, it's not an abstract "idea", so that "power" has to go somewhere. It radiates out.

I'm not really arguing with you, i just think if i simulate entropy (entropic processes, "CSRNG", whatever) on my computer ...


I agree and the radiation/physical effect is in my opinion the only possibility a normal computer may somehow be able to cause some kind of consciousness.


wow, we were at an impasse, but somehow i managed to make myself understood. Happy Mardi Gras!


> A simulation is never the actual simulated phenomenon.

That's not obviously true, especially given how the more we keep digging into physics, the more everything seems to be "just information".


Seems to me like wishful thinking. This would require an interface to connect to and there we are most probably in the physical realm again (what we can perceive as such).


The entire p-zombie concept presumes dualism (or something close enough to it that I'm happy to lump it all into the generic category of "requires woo"). Gravity having an effect on something is measurable and provable, whereas qualia are not.


No, panprotopsychism and panpsychism are also very hot contenders. Considering the lack of any examples where computation itself yields measurable effects on reality why should it be the case for consciousness? It's wishful thinking of computer enthusiasts if you ask me.


To be clear, the topic of philosophical zombies has to do with consciousness.


You can simulate a black hole on a mainframe, but that doesn't mean the math is going to escape and eat your solar system.

We don't know if consciousness is computable, because we don't know what consciousness is.

There are suggestions it isn't even local, never mind Turing-computable.


the heat radiated is entropy and will eventually wind up in a black hole. we missed a step.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: