Horses eat feed. Cars eat gasoline. LLMs eat electricity, and progress may even now be finding its limits in that arena. Besides the fact that just more compute and context size aren’t the right kind of progress. LLMs aren’t coming for your job any more than computer vision is, for a lot of reasons, but I’ll list two more:
1. Even if LLMs made everyone 10x as productive, most companies will still have more work to do than resources to assign to those tasks. The only reason to reduce headcount is to remove people who already weren’t providing much value.
2. Writing code continues to be a very late step of the overall software development process. Even if all my code was written for me, instantly, just the way I would want it written, I still have a full-time job.
I've been getting lots of value out of AI coding tools; especially in the last few months. My assessment is that this will lead to more work to do, not less. It's not a zero sum game. More of what I do is baby sitting AIs. But together we do more than me with my team before. It will reflect in my hiring decisions as well. I want people that can do this responsibly (are able to tell good from bad code, are able to think for themselves, are able to get stuff done).
My observation so far is that micromanaging AIs still sucks
The article gives a good simplified explanation, here is my shorter explanation: porous materials, like sponges, have a lot of surface area, which is useful for two main reasons: 1) speeding up reaction rates and 2) capturing and releasing molecules (water, CO2, pollutants, etc.) More surface area is more valuable. Before, the most surface area we had was with zeolites, which are aluminosilicate minerals which occur naturally and are also synthetically produced - the synthetics mostly produced by trial and error. MOFs are unique in a few ways; for one, they are rationally designed molecules where we can predict some properties, and two, the surface area is far higher than zeolites. Zeolites range from 10-1700 m2/gram based on how you measure (most are from 20-400) and MOFs range from 1000-7000+.
Unfortunately MOFs are still quite expensive and very much on the cutting edge, so I am forced to use zeolites anytime I want a lot of surface area, but they are getting more accessible (you can now buy them on Amazon!) and I imagine the price will come down for some of the simpler to make MOFs in the near future.
This website analyzes speech to find your probable alternative names on HN. It’s probably easy to recoup a few more signals to find your name on other apps:
I feel this with every fiber of my being. I used to do a TON of front-end work, some of it quite cutting edge, delivering highly performant user experiences in the browser that had previously been only thought possible in a native app. Back in like 2009-2015. I was deeply connected with the web standards fundamentals and how to leverage them mostly directly.
I detoured into heavier focus on backend work for quite a while, concurrent with the rise of React, and watched its rise with suspicion because it seemed like such an inefficient way to do things. That, and JSX's limitations around everything having to be an expression made me want to gauge out my eyes.
Still, React pushed and laid the foundation for some really important paradigm shifts in terms of state management. The path from the old mental models around state to a unidirectional flow of immutable data... re-learning a totally new mental model was painful, but important.
Even though it's been chaotic at times, React has delivered a lot of value in terms of innovation and how we conceptualize web application architecture.
But today, when you compare it to something like SolidJS, it's really clear to see how Solid delivers basically all the same benefits, but in an architecture that's both simpler and more performant. And in a way that's much easier to organize and reason about than React. You still get JSX, server components, reactive state management (actually a MUCH better and cleaner foundation for that) and any React dev could move to Solid with fairly little mental re-wiring of the neural pathways. It doesn't require you to really change anything about how you think about application architecture and structure. It just basically does everything React does but better, faster, and with drastically smaller bundle sizes.
Yet I still have to begrudgingly use React in several contexts because of the industry-wide inertia, and I really wish I didn't have to.
Yes, and sulfur isn't the only cloud nucleation trigger. Refineries of ship 'bunker fuel' used to seek contracts from disposal companies to burn their chemical waste at sea. And dirty fuel has lots of natural vanadium. Source: oil spill around my houseboat legal case in the 1980s, fuel company had to disclose breakdown of content.
> We don't just keep adding more words to our context window, because it would drive us mad.
That, and we also don't only focus on the textual description of a problem when we encounter a problem. We don't see the debugger output and go "how do I make this bad output go away?!?". Oh, I am getting an authentication error. Well, meaybe I should just delete the token check for that code path...problem solved?!
No. Problem very much not-solved. In fact, problem very much very bigger big problem now, and [Grug][1] find himself reaching for club again.
Software engineers are able to step back, think about the whole thing, and determine the root cause of a problem. I am getting an auth error...ok, what happens when the token is verified...oh, look, the problem is not the authentication at all...in fact there is no error! The test was simply bad and tried to call a higher privilege function as a lower privilege user. So, test needs to be fixed. And also, even though it isn't per-se an error, the response for that function should maybe differentiate between "401 because you didn't authenticate" and "401 because your privileges are too low".
I wouldn't make too much of that. Those are all people who have to worry about the rules against short-swing trades, which have been in US securities law since the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Here's some background.
A short-swing trade is a sale of a given company's stock if you have purchased any stock in that company in the previous 6 months, or a purchase of that company's stock if you have sold any stock in that company in the previous 6 months.
The regulations want to discourage those kind of trades among officers and directors and people who own more than 10% of the company. Basically everyone who is required to report their trades.
I believe the idea is that those people should be focusing on running the company rather than trying to personally gain from short term fluctuations in the market.
The way it discourages these trades is if someone covered by the regulation makes a short-swing trade they can be compelled to turn over any profit from that trade to the company.
There are three things that make this quite effective.
1. It is enforced by any shareholder suing the trader. The shareholder does not have to have been a shareholder at the time the trades took place. They only need to be a shareholder when the lawsuit is filed.
2. If the shareholder wins (which they will because there isn't really a good defense) the trader has to pay the shareholder's legal fees.
3. The way short-swing trade profits are calculated is by matching up the lowest priced purchases with the highest priced sales, and then recursing on any shares that have not yet been matched.
Remember that the people this applies to have to report their trades and that data is public. When that data started becoming available in digital form a long time ago (on tapes bought from the SEC back in the mainframe days) there were securities law firms that started buying it and running programs to automatically find short-swing trades. It was then an easy matter to purchase a minimum amount of stock in the company, and sue the trader. They could get enough in attorney fees from this to come out ahead.
Even if the high probability that you will be caught and have to disgorge your profits wasn't enough to stop you, #3, the way profits are calculated might.
Suppose you bought 1000 shares at $100 a share, then a month later sold than at $90 a share. A month after that you buy again at $80 a share. A month later you sell at $70 a share.
In reality you have lost $20 a share on that series of transactions. If you started with $100k in your brokerage account and no shares, you were at $0 after the first buy, then at $90k after selling those, then at $10k after the second purchase, ending up at $80k and no shares after the second sale.
But in short-swing trade accounting this highest sale ($90 a share) is matched up with the lowest purchase (the $80 a share purchase a month later) and the difference counts as profit ($10 a share in this example). That's $10k you owe the company, leaving you at $70k and no shares.
Your $20 a share loss has become a $30 a share loss. Ouch!
The bottom line then is that people required to report their trades really tend to pick a direction (buying or selling) and keep with. They need to take a six month break from trading every time they want to make a trade in the opposite direction from their previous trade.
I have this little bookmarklet in my bookmarks bar that I use constantly. It removes all fixed or sticky elements on the page and re-enabled y-overflow if it was disabled:
Oh, in the middle of "AI is PhD-level" propaganda (just check Google News to see this is not a strawman argument), some people finally admit in passing "no LLM has ever made a breakthrough".
Or attribute-based credentials. Basically, you're challenged and get a one-time, challenger-specific credential for exactly the requested attribute(s) from a credential provider. Eg. government (municipality, province, national) can become a credential provider.
Integrating my time series database (https://github.com/dicroce/nanots) as the underlying storage engine in my video surveillance system, and the performance is glorious. Next up I'm trying to decide between a mobile app or AI... and if AI local or in the cloud?
> They have an opportunity to create some goodwill here
According to Bryan Cantrill, you don't need to be open minded about Oracle. It's a waste of the openness of your mind. He says what you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. He believes there has been no entity in human history with less complexity and nuance to it than Oracle.
Bryan warns, "Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn. You stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- the lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."
I spoke to my half-brother about this. He worked for a company up until the late 90's for almost 20 years, then got laid off. They offered him various programs to return to school and take a new career path, but he didn't want to do that, so it's really his fault. He has been bitter ever since.
I showed him this post and he had the following to say about it:
"Unless your company is a non-profit, then anything the company does is for the purpose of profit, and everything else is subordinate to that. A 'Puritan Work Ethic' culture makes people believe work has inherent value, so expressions of shared value, cohesion, culture, etc. are done to take advantage of that and convince people to work for less. So shared values and cohesion help manage salaries and wages, but if people end up not being needed, then those aren't needed."
I don't know. If AI replaces jobs, or makes most of them "copy-paste what the AI said," what is the meaning of that?
I asked him that, and he said this:
"I guess everyone's gonna have to be blue collar now or join the military."
What remains is a sea of Gen Z designers who weren't yet alive when the foggy glass of Windows Vista seemed like a good idea.
Meanwhile, the talent wars are raging, with every AI company offering 7-figure salaries to the best of Apple's prodigies.
Apple is now the old guard. They're no longer cool, and as a public company, cost controls are too stringent; they can't pay as much. What is Apple to do?
They can give the designers a sense of ownership. It's not a question of how (un)qualified the team is; it's a retention play.
Is the design good? The A and B squads would say no. But this is the best Apple can do these days to keep critical talent engaged.
They'll burn a cycle re-learning fundamental lessons in accessibility, retain talent, and cling to the hope that next year they'll have a midwit Siri than can book a flight with a decent looking UI.
Until now I've actually been a believer in the amount of money that Zuck has poured into metaverse investments. I'm not a believer of the metaverse per se, but a believer that innovation takes unafraid capex. The last thing you want to be is scared money like microsoft who chose to scuttle the hololense project over the thought of spending a couple extra billion dollars on it.
But this deal really has left me with my head scratching. Scale is, to put it charitably, a glorified wrapper over workers in the Philippines. What meta gets in this deal is, in effect, is Alexander Wang. This is the same Wang who has said enough in public for me to think, "huh?" Said a lot of revealing stuff like at Davos (dont have the pull quotes off the top of my head) that made me realize he's just kind of a faker. A very good salesman who ultimately gets his facts off the same twitter feed we all do.
On top of what makes this baffling is that Meta has very publicly faced numerous issues and setbacks due to very poor data from Scale that caused public fires in both companies. So you're bringing in a guy whose company has caused grief for your researchers, is not research nor product oriented, and expect to galvanize talent from both the inside and outside to move towards GAI? What is Mark thinking?
Zuckerberg seems to have had all the pieces to make this work but I'm a lot less confident if I'm a shareholder now than a week ago. This is a huge miss.
Explorer in windows 11 is truly death by a thousand needles.
Today I was manually sorting a bunch of files into folders that I had opened as tabs.
Drag file over tab, tab move and I now activate wrong tab.
Second try: drag file to where tab isn’t, such that the tab moves to where my mouse is. I now activate correct tab and can move the file to the designated folder. Single click the file and select a different file because file ends up at bottom of list when released, and then gets sorted after a second or two.
Click F2 to start renaming the file, click left to deselect and move cursor to the beginning of file name. Start adding text, only for the entire string to get selected and everything overwritten.
I always assumed that compiling code to run in the browser would be slow, but OP points out that this is not the case. As the Emscripten project describes:
> Thanks to the combination of LLVM, Emscripten, Binaryen, and WebAssembly, the output is compact and runs at near-native speed.
1. User logged into FB or IG app. The app runs in background, and listens for incoming traffic on specific ports.
2. User visits website on the phone's browser, say something-embarassing.com, which happens to have a Meta Pixel embedded. From the article, Meta Pixel is embedded on over 5.8 million websites. Even in In-Cognito mode, they will still get tracked.
3. Website might ask for user's consent depending on location. The article doesn't elaborate, presumably this is the cookie banner that many people automatically accept to get on with their browsing?
4. > The Meta Pixel script sends the _fbp cookie (containing browsing info) to the native Instagram or Facebook app via WebRTC (STUN) SDP Munging.
You won't see this in your browser's dev tools.
5. Through the logged-in app, Meta can now associate the "anonymous" browser activity with the logged-in user. The app relays _fbp info and user id info to Meta's servers.
Also noteworthy:
> This web-to-app ID sharing method bypasses typical privacy protections such as clearing cookies, Incognito Mode and Android's permission controls. Worse, it opens the door for potentially malicious apps eavesdropping on users’ web activity.
> On or around May 17th, Meta Pixel added a new method to their script that sends the _fbp cookie using WebRTC TURN instead of STUN. The new TURN method avoids SDP Munging, which Chrome developers publicly announced to disable following our disclosure. As of June 2, 2025, we have not observed the Facebook or Instagram applications actively listening on these new ports.
And all the other things you predicted. They're underway _now_ .
> Maybe if there are more of me, things will slow down enough
Nope. That's not how it's gonna work. If you want to prevent things, it will take legislation. But sitting it out doesn't send any message at all. No amount of butterflies farting against the wind is going to stop this tornado.
> Research we published earlier this year showed that 60% of participants fell victim to artificial intelligence (AI)-automated phishing, which is comparable to the success rates of non-AI-phishing messages created by human experts. Perhaps even more worryingly, our new research demonstrates that the entire phishing process can be automated using LLMs, which reduces the costs of phishing attacks by more than 95% while achieving equal or greater success rates
I am seeing a stream of comments on Reddit that are entirely ai driven, and even bots which are engaging in conversations. Worst case scenarios I’m looking at will mean it’s better to assume everyone online is a bot.
I know of cases where people have been duped into buying stocks because of an AI generated version of a publicly known VP of a financial firm.
Then there’s the case where someone didn’t follow email hygiene and got into a zoom call with what appeared to be their CFO and team members, and transferred several million dollars out of the firm.
And it’s only 2-3 years into this lovely process. The future is so bleak that just talking about this with people not involved with looking at these things call it nihilism.
It’s so bad that talking about it is like punching hope.
