Yep, attempted signing up to Claude recently, wanted cc number, name and address directly on site. No paypal. Wow. In the end my card was rejected and I couldn't even sign up. Wow++.
Increasingly, I'm seeing crypto as the best thing long-term. No one's going to deny me service based on who I am and where I live (or could be living,) let alone giving that info over to third parties unnecessarily. No false positives leading to rejection either based on that information which shouldn't even be asked for. Identity should be a choice, not a requirement or a coercion. Like this, even bitcoin enables a high degree of anonymity.
What's with this whole "Billing Address" bull^^^^? No one needs to know that when I buy something with cash at a supermarket or use a credit card at a gas station.
If someone wants to know exactly who I am and where I am (or could be) then there should be a card for that which will co-exist with the crypto. Does PayPal provide names of buyers to sellers? Also, a buyer's protection thing could exist as some type of adjunct escrow service for sellers to use.
"He warned investors never to share their 24-word recovery phrase and said large holders should avoid keeping direct access to their full holdings at home."
That's the last thing that should be solved. Remove the temptation for crime.
My first experience with a GUI was the HP-40G calculators. By their nature, they only have arrows and accept/cancel buttons.
It featured very advanced symbolic computation features (CAS that would step you through intermediary results), but the magical thing was how equations, rather than being a series of characters, that you piece up into meaningful chunks through parentheses, where actually displayed like mathematicians would write them.
Then, to select and edit a specific part of the equation, you have a natural 'box'; numerator/denominator, etc, then you can drill down into the recusirve structure of the mathematical expression. It also means that regular edits are 'correct' by default: delete a parenthesis and your expression is syntactically invalid, whereas "replace the numerator f(x)^2 by 6a" keep you in the space of syntactically valid expressions.
In other words, this is the holy trinity of UI: semantic - accessible - efficient
The experience is unparalleled to this day, although writing it down I realize more why it was never really reproduced.
For a browser, I would imagine having blocks like:
A. meta (browser itself) / B. page (DOM)
A1. page controls (bookmark, ...) / A2. Navigation experience (font size, dark mode, ...)
Why should any of that be a secret? We don't have to give companies rights that normal people do not have. If there is money to be made, let two AIs discuss it. CEOs are way too corrupt and way too overpaid to be trusted. local AI wiped out one of my harddrives trying to resize it. That is less damage than a CEO can do. AI is safer than a human CEO.
If we restored the 1950s tax code that discouraged mergers and kept CEOs from grifting, everything you were concerned about stops happening. Businesses were way more honest when there are thousands of local and regional competitors. Federal tax cuts let CEOs merge everything.
First thing that caught my eye is the space between the command prompt and the first character of the command; but other than that, it's very much "I can't believe it's not Windows".
>They get rewarded because they appear to move fast, eventually become management, and the whole thing gets worse as time goes on.
We've got a winner. Devs respond to the incentives set by management, and the message I have received loud and clear, my entire career, despite protestation, is that I should ship faster and not worry about bugs so much, big or small.
That I take pride in what I do is the only reason motivating me to not ship bugs.
This argument assumes we must build nuclear power.
The problem is that electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin. Now that we are moving beyond a purely centralized design.
Think about a homeowner or factory with their own renewables and storage.
They fundamentally operate on marginal price by choosing when they use their own system and when they buy from the grid.
If you add state owned reliable power to this mix they will cherry-pick. Their own cheap electricity when it delivers and the states should subsidized reliable electricity when it doesn’t.
We can try add all manner of markets, fixed connection costs and what not to this but all it does is introduce strange arbitrage possibilities in the market.
Which is why we have settled on net energy markets and then the lowest possible amount of ancillary markets to shore up any gaps which would cause problems for the larger society.
Matter of fact, the vast majority has moved on to Wayland years ago, both KDE and Gnome have reported their usage stats and neither sees a point in keeping X11 afloat. I too have been using Wayland (KDE) for years, it addressed some decades-long struggles around multi monitor and DPI layouts. I use input methods for CJK that work better and more consistently than before. As far as I'm concerned, this ship has sailed, for the better.
yes I believe we are, and such indefinite maintenance is the result of FOSS and open repos and open collaboration that can re-iterate and keep a strong and decent level of maintenance.
maintainers are very important to me because i know the effort behind and the backbone of passion that holds them alive, and I would do the same, I would do it for passion and ask nothing back, especially topics like Credits and Copyrights (go check the related history, a shame)
Out of the almost 700 comments, many defend Milo and deem unacceptable he doesn't have access to one platform.
Just watch them say nothing now that he has completely lost all of his freedom, thrown in a cell by masked paramilitaries, after being sicced by Lara Loomer - whose only authority is being a presidential cheerleader.
To those here simping for Trump: he doesn't care about you, the same way he doesn't care about Milo nor Charlie Kirk.
You didn't name the object when you said "let this thing be X"; you actually had already identified that "thing", and that process of identification was the process of naming it. You then defined some syntax ("X") and said that it was a name.
But there are things for which you can't even say "let 'this thing' be…". For example, ZF proves that there are uncountably many reals. There are only countably many names, so there must be unnameable reals. You can talk about "generic" reals (you can say "let x be a real" and do all sorts of interesting things with a generic x), but there are specific reals you will never be able to name specifically enough to distinguish them from their uncountably-many brethren. That doesn't make them "vague, undefined or ephemeral"! They're just so numerous that you can't describe the distinctions between them.
(Even hardcore constructivists usually accept enough Choice to prove the reals uncountable, although https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01256 made headlines when it was shown not to be necessarily true.)
I'll try with an example first, and then will try to extrapolate to something more general.
I'm a longtime Emacs user and I detest tools like VSCode (VSCode in particular) because they aren't fully keyboard driven. "Fully" is the important part here. You can do a lot of things with keyboard in VSCode, but every now and then there isn't a way to do what you want without the mouse. And it screams "bad (no) design". For example, jumping between different panes in the editor is not always possible without a mouse, or the path to doing it is too long.
Before my attempt at generalization, I also want to address these:
> UIs like CLI or TUI suffer terrible discoverability
They typically do, but they don't have to. The reason for making a CLI and, to a lesser extent, TUI is the development speed. A full graphical interface will take longer to develop. So, whoever ends up making a CLI or a TUI tends not to invest time into accessibility either, because their goal was to save time on the UI in the first place.
Another aspect of this problem is the baseline knowledge. Users of graphical interfaces know how to discover functionality, they recognize familiar controls and patterns, they know that a cogwheel icon is likely to be a gateway to a program's settings, that if they want to make their changes persist, they need to look for something that looks like an open folder, or maybe a diskette icon...
Emacs has absolutely amazing discoverability. No program with graphical interface ever made doesn't hold a candle to what Emacs can do. But the user needs to have the baseline knowledge to... ironically, discover the discoverability. And I don't think there's a way to bootstrap from this problem. The minimal knowledge necessary to discover Emacs' features must come from reading the manual or asking a friend etc. Just to give you a few examples: Emacs can easily display all, without exception, keys and associated functionality available in the current editor's layout. It can also display them per individual component (if you, for example, knew that a key was defined, but was missing from the aforementioned list). You could also use the function name, if known, to find what key it binds to in the current layout. You can easily discover what any key (combination) does in the current layout without actually trying it (rather reading its documentation).
> can we have a keyboard-driven UI that is as intuitive as clicking with a mouse?
Absolutely! If we commit to a general set of rules that allow bootstrapping. This would require a degree of uniformity between such tools and, perhaps, some visual or even physical aids in the computer periphery to make this work. Computer interfaces, both physical and on-screen, evolved to support mouse-first UIs. For example, the navigation arrows on the keyboard are virtually never drawn on jklm etc. The keyboard is presented to its users as a tool solely designed for entering text, not a tool to engage UI controls. Compare this to gamers' keyboards that often emphasize wasd keys (because they are often used for moving your character in games) or even more extreme designs like Nostromo that are geared towards typical game interface.
* * *
Being keyboard-driven isn't about, as you said, having a shortcut assigned to an action. This is not how good keyboard-driven programs work. This is the way of thinking if your baseline experience is a GUI, which must be somehow retrofitted into the world with the keyboard as a primary driver.
Keyboard-driven, to me, means that the program has a systematic, hierarchical and consistent approach to deal with the keyboard input. Assigning keys to actions at random will quickly overload the user's ability to memorize such bindings. A keyboard-driven program is designed to have a system that the user can internalize and use to predict the right key for the desired action. Such a program should make no exceptions when binding actions to keys: any action should be accessible in a reasonable small number of keystrokes.
Lots of really thorny gotcha's relating to their proprietary triggers that aren't documented anywhere.
You will end up having to talk to their devs and inevitably get answers that are some flavor of "pay for enterprise, but you can't test to see if it actually solves your problem".
It can also be very expensive and messy to setup developer environments since there is not self-hosted option.
I haven't used it in a professional setting since the Okta acquisition, but I can't imagine it has gotten any better.
I see a lot of questions here that can be googled or asked with AI chat. Good question, but I also think, why didn’t that person just find out themselves? It’s so easy..
Agreed. Good design is when the things do what you expect them to do without reading the manual, don't reuse wording with other meaning in the wrong way. That way if you do encounter nee wording, you know you should read the manual.
Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. It’s sort of what I do too when I use codex/claude/t3 code, but usually via GUI.
The in-editor context review is something that does not seem long for first world. Sadly. Maybe I’ll be forced to make a zed extension or something, maybe on top of jujustu…
they owe us the responsibility of having created, released and maintained something that they created and they are responsible for.
If you cannot handle or take this responsibility towards the community you cannot do opensource. just do a company and try to profit, but don't interfere with FOSS and impact FOSS in general if you cannot handle it.
Shares aren't a real thing. They are paper invented out of thin air with intent to pull the money out of capital market. There are already many rules about what you have to do be allowed to sell them to the public.
Adding a rule that 10% of whatever you print must be put under national democratic control is not inconceivable.
Hi HN,
I built this because my coding agent subscription quota was running out too quickly.
I already had access to web-based AI with much more usage, so I started wondering: why not let the web AI do the thinking, and let the coding agent do the actual work?
MCP made this possible.
AgentBridge connects the two: the Brain can inspect the local project and create a plan, while the local coding agent executes the changes and runs tests.
It started as a way to make better use of my AI subscriptions, but I think the Brain/Executor separation could be useful beyond that.
There's also the benefit of following the strategy the Democrats as a larger party have followed since at least George W. Bush. Let someone stupider or bolder break a system that's hampering you, and then just never fix it because it benefits you. Disregard that with it broken your opponent can, will, and does cause more harm to everyone. We've been in a cycle of one side smashing whatever makes them upset at the moment, and then the other side just walking over the shards now that they don't have to detour around it.
>FOSS is not affected negatively.
First because FOSS is not en entity in the first place. There is no "community" per se but a muriad of softwares choosing open source licences for various reasons.
Second because the choices of one project maintainer is negligible.
Yes it is, this was a major component.
>This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity
By moderators that are not existing but should actually moderate human mental issues affecting FOSS
>Now I understand. You must be new. How old are you? 10? FOSS has existed way before github and will probably still exist when github will be forgotten. There are still many open source projects not using github, some do not even use git.
Nope, is just that a useful open source project for me has always public report and that's the basis to start collaborating.
>Not having to deal with external input, PRs, bug reports seems to be a good example.
That's normal in open source, should be taken into account and managed like everybody else does in open source projects. Just go look at sftpgo, as an example.
>Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so.
Yes clearly, the community easily realizes this behavior and now I see a private path of commits in private reps of somebody working alone.
>The project will be fine as long as the maintainer wants it to be active. This is the only thing that counts.
Nope, forked, hated and closed are not fine for an open source project.
>Which community? Other devs? They can (and do) fork when they wish to do so.
All of it, anybody using the open source, should be free to use, modify and collaborate on a project independently from the mental issues of the one that started it. closing repos just goes against all of this and should be a shame.
https://mrgris.com/projects/merc-extreme/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1256230/Hyperbolica/
Spherical Geometry Is Stranger Than Hyperbolic - Hyperbolica Devlog #2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yY9GAyJtuJ0