Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rdiddly's commentslogin

I have a suspicion that saddling a chat context with all this instruction would paradoxically produce worse results due to being overconstrained. But I haven't tested this. It's just that some of these are legitimate writing techniques that are simply overused. Is every single one of them always and automatically bullshit?

Also whoever claims "no human writes like this" hasn't been to LinkedIn... though the humanity of those writers might be debatable. But all the vapidity, all the pointless chatter to fill up time and space, it learned that from us.

I wouldn't have delegated this to an AI. Human for human, human for AI.


Boy, that was fragmented. What should I have done for years leading up to today to prepare for reading this? Gaming? Doomscrolling social media? Chugging Mountain Dew? Reading poetry?

It's very unique to LinkedIn. OP's prose is difficult to process even if you've abused your brain for years with LinkedIn content, though. In a more merciful timeline, only people like James Ellroy or Cormac McCarthy would ever attempt to write like that.

Or people like the neuroqueer author.

It's a synthesis of multiple problem domains that thought they were special. When the truth is: they weren't.

It was fragmented? Good.

Welcome to reality. ;)


Try LinkedIn

Fr bruh rizzing hard to this og jester gooning.

Idiocracy is reality: people can't even form paragraph-length thoughts any more. I just noped out.

You don't understand my writing. Hence I must be stupid.

Interesting conclusion. ;)


Yeah, are these poems? I feel like it's just more AI slop.

It is

AI content is clearly marked as such.

The rest is written by me personally on my shoddy MacBook.


You can't say someone has achieved artificial general intelligence for some specific subset of tasks or parameters; it's a contradiction.

AI won't replace the best of us, but it has already transformed my job into something much less enjoyable, so I have still been pondering this question. I once had a career in one of the "real" engineering disciplines, maybe I would go back to that. I'm also good at music, and we all know what a freaking goldmine that is!

It would democratize sports, while making sports worthless and unremarkable. It would collapse the market for sports.

"The situation is made more complex because TikTok has long faced accusations that ties to the Chinese state may put users' data at risk."

And yet, it's even more complex than that, since it's now owned by cronies of the current US President. I've never had a TikTok account, but conceptually I was mostly pretty okay with being spied-upon by China. I'm never going to China.


> I'm never going to China.

China will come to us.

Or should that be:

China will come to the US.


> "I'm never going to China."

Voluntarily.


Yes. China gives a shit that user rdiddly, at 36 minutes before 00:55 UTC on March 4, 2026, said that China is spyihg to the point that they are going to be abducted for it.

"You pay and it's yours." Which is exactly why, having paid for an ad-free service, people are miffed when ads appear anyway. I'm not going to take on the responsibility of educating you as to the examples that exist, because that's your own responsibility. Not only because we have to educate ourselves, but because you made the unsupported claim in the first place that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Proving a negative is very difficult, as we with all this glorious mental firepower know. In a world this large, it's a poor bet on a statistical basis alone.

No one will ever be able to help the people who have an aneurysm when a Toyota logo is visible on the steering wheel of the protagonists car.

What is your point here? Yes, if I were to pay for a movie or show, I would find it unacceptable if it were to contain paid product placement. Do you think prominent logos in media are an accident?

And youtube could easily ban third party sponsors in their ToS, have all advertising on their platform go through them, and completely remove it for paying customers. Just like Netflix can refuse to host any shows with product placement. It's entirely their own product decision to allow ads in their "ad free" offering.


Us bribing them: fine

Us taking the contract, working for them and enabling them: fine

It being renamed the Dept. of War in the first place: totally fine, we loudly and bootlickingly repeat it

Anthropic being blacklisted: whoa there, we have ethics!

Footnote: any time the winning team tries to speak well of or defend the losing team I always think of this standup routine: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg6wBwhuaVo


It's not even "whoa we have ethics", it's just "this is a bad look for us".

Unfortunately, you can't dismiss it based on that. Most of what this administration does is an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.

Well it only took until the 2nd paragraph, and the words "DJI’s remote cloud servers" for me to be forehead-slappingly disgusted again.

Obviously proper diligence wasn't followed with this product, and obviously this is going to be something we've all heard before, but why does a vacuum need to talk to a server at all?

And also, to go even further back, is there anything more leopards-ate-my-face than a compromised robo-vacuum? I have never understood the appeal of these things. Except as satire. Pushing a vacuum around takes minutes, once a month, all the more so when you live in a 3m x 3m box with 12 roommates, and is badly needed exercise for a lot of pathetic little nerd noodle-arms.


> Pushing a vacuum around takes minutes, once a month, all the more so when you live in a 3m x 3m box with 12 roommates

That's a lot of assumptions.

I budget an hour every couple of weeks to vacuum the entire house (kitchen more frequently, but that's quick). When we had pets, which we'll probably have again in the future, this had to be done weekly.


I get the frustration, but this is how pretty much all of the connected home devices on the market work. Sure, there are local-only versions of many of these things, but that sort of design is in the minority both in number of products and in sales.

And it makes sense: most people want this stuff to just work, and be accessible when they aren't at home on their WiFi network. The only reasonable way to do that these days is to have a central server that both the devices and the control apps connect to. Very few users (and yes I am one of them) are going to set up a local control server and figure out how to securely set up remote access to it.

It's a crappy situation that leads to security incidents like this one, but that's just where we are right now.

Regarding cleaning frequency: no need to repeat what the sibling commenter said, but I will say I suspect your cleaning needs are much lower than those of the average person.


>once a month

We vacuum and mop our kitchen and dining room daily. It gets dirty, especially when you have young kids.


> Pushing a vacuum around takes minutes, once a month,

Wait, you vacuum your living space *once a month*? If that is indeed the case, I am nit surprised you do not get the appeal. But everybody I know personally has a different understanding of cleanliness. We vacuum once a week at least and ans frequency only goes up if you have kids or/and pets.

> and is badly needed exercise for a lot of pathetic little nerd noodle-arms.

I get the implication, hahaha. But in all seriousness, our Robot vacuum was the only tech purchase that I ever made based on an explicit wish of my girlfriend.

These things really make life easier for lots and lots of people.


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

Search: