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

Yeah, I mean when I set up my last distro I just installed claude and told it what I wanted and in about 30 minutes it was up and running. No need to install random distros!


The article outlines several changes Meta is having to implement that curbs the "and be able to continue doing so" argument a bit. That said, I wish these settlements included tobacco-esque requirements for ongoing funds to educate people. The tobacco settlement funds have been somewhat successful.


Have they?

I know a lot of my peers went to college for free with the Millennium Scholarship.

But so many young people vape now that it's becoming cool to smoke analog cigarettes. I barely knew anyone who smoked 10-20y ago. Many people that age now do.


In England, in 2000 25% of 15 year olds regularly smoked, by 2023 it was 2.5%

For the 11-15 group as a whole it dropped from 11% to 1.2%

Vaping in that 11-15 group was 5% in 2023

So combined smoking and vaping in young people halved from 11% in 2000 to 6% in 2023, almost all of which is vaping

https://ash.org.uk/uploads/Youth-Smoking-Fact-Sheet.pdf

https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/use-of-e-cigarettes-among-...


Maybe you know different young people now ?

I saw way more smoking 10-20 years ago. All have quit now.

I see a good amount vape but rarely see cigarettes these days


I can't go outside in Toronto without having to smell cigarettes/cannabis.


Analog cigarettes! I love how “analog” has become synonymous with everything more manual, natural, even or better.


My favorite is the “acoustic bike” instead of electric bike (the joke comes from guitars, I think)


I'll start calling normal chairs acoustic chairs now to stretch this joke even further.


ICCs? Internal combustion cigarettes


Alternative Meanings (Noun)Comparable Thing: Something similar or comparable to another thing (also spelled analogue).


Smoking tobacco is something people have done for centuries. Pretty unlikely that we'd eliminate it in a few decades.


smoking tobacco is bad, but smoking cigarettes is much, much worse because of all the extra shit that's added in to make them even more addictive (and more carcinogenic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarette...


If you inhale the smoke, it's quite irrelevant whether smoking an industrial cigarette, pipe or a hand-crafted cigar without additives. You'll probably get lung cancer anyway if you continue it long enough. Smoke is always carcinogenic.

I don't really get the point when there are many ways of getting nicotine without the smoke.


You're not wrong about smoke always being bad--there's a reason American Spirits have to have a disclaimer about "additive-free" not meaning healthier. Tobacco takes up alpha emitters from the soil and leaves them in your body--never good.

Pipe and cigar smokers are much less likely to smoke a pack's worth of tobacco a day. You also don't inhale them into your lungs, you hold the smoke in your mouth.

Smoking cigarettes is less about getting nicotine and more about having something to do when you are stressed etc.


Fun fact: the stress that smoking cigarettes relieves is only the stress caused by the addiction/relapse from nicotine. Surely, there might be some placebo effects going on, but nicotine is not a stress relieving chemical.

So really it is just about getting nicotine, but over time the ritual around the addiction adds to the addiction.


True, but I am vaguely aware of people taking like Zyn for performance enhancement reasons, and I don't think anyone starts smoking like that.


Zyn is freebase nicotine which does show some signs of being performance enhancing; mostly around focus. There are a lot of people with unmedicated ADHD self-medicating with Zyn, or vapes, or smoking due to the this.


Well, I suppose less radiation could be one of the advantages of a crack habit


I don't smoke, but when I've talked to smokers a lot of it is about the ritual. Filling the pipe, cutting and smelling the cigar, or removing the cigarette from the pack, tapping it, lighting it up, the taste and smell of the smoke, it's all part of it not just the nicotine.


It’s true and smoking marijuana is arguably as harmful as cigarettes but the pro-weed crowd throws a fit any time anyone points that out.


That’s not true. The lifetime risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is about 10-20%, not “probably” (somewhere between 15 and 30 times higher risk than a non-smoker).

In fact, only about half of smokers die prematurely from their smoking.

I mean, I’m not saying start smoking, but also let’s at least have accurate facts.


> By age 80y, an estimated 48.3% of current-smokers (41.1% never-smokers) will develop cancer, and 14% will develop lung cancer [0]

"The lifetime risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is about 10-20%".

Yup. That's probably true. It is also incredibly misleading, because that isn't the only cancer you are at risk from. So... I wouldn't call what you just said, an accurate fact.

[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.33685


OP said: “You'll probably get lung cancer anyway if you continue it long enough”.

That’s not true, and is why I focused on lung cancer. Don’t forget that smokers don’t just die of cancer, so even if we take your source, we still don’t have the proper picture.

That’s why I also added the point that about half of smokers die prematurely due to their smoking, because I was not planning to exhaustively list every possible cause of death which could be caused by smoking.


Europeans started smoking tobacco in 1492 and it spread super fast.

It probably can't be eliminated completely, but if they slowly make it illegal for young people to start the habit it can be reduced


We've been harming children for even longer


> I barely knew anyone who smoked 10-20y ago

What country?

In a lot of the US, smoking sections still existed in restaurants then.

Just checked my home town, some bans were enacted in 2014 and existing restaurants and bars are still grandfathered in!


Vaping is distinctly less harmful than smoking.


We don't actually know that yet. The main studies are still ongoing, because this tends to be the kind of thing you measure over decades, and we haven't had those yet.

Does it increase the risk of Alzheimers? Does it riddle your brain with cancer at a later stage?

We don't know.

We do know that it is short-term less harmful, than something where most of the concerns are long-term.


Smoking's harms are observable in the short term! You don't need long-term longitudinal studies to show smoking is bad. And we have known mechanisms for that harm that relate to combustion. We know mechanically that vapes are not combusting plant material, and we also don't see the same kinds of obvious harms in the short term. It takes willful blindness to the ills of smoking to suggest that vaping might be as harmful or more harmful than smoking.


It takes "wilful blindness" to suggest vaping can be understood completely today.

We already know there are unexpected side-effects. Like kids starting to go blind, when they start young.

I didn't use Alzheimer's as a random example above. There is a known correlation.

So... Maybe it isn't combusting plant material. But it is probably causing brain damage in some form or another - and that is precisely the kind of symptom that requires a longitudinal study to understand the impact!


I actually do not know if this is true.


Vaping is not healthy but there is a lot less material inhaled. No fine particles which do real damage.

So vaping is still unhealthy but less than smoking plant matters.


>Vaping is not healthy but there is a lot less material inhaled. No fine particles which do real damage.

Propylene glycol covers the alvoelae and over time (~15-20 years) blocks uptake of oxygen, causing respiratory failure and a slow, painful death.

Vegetable glycerine coats the lungs and over time (~10-25 years) blocks fluid from draining out of the lungs, causing congestive heart failure/pulmonary edema. Which ends up causing one to drown in their own bodily fluids and a slow, painful death.

If you disagree, please cite any long term studies that disprove the above. Thanks!


I do not disagree, but can you cite the studies proving this?

Also proof that people did die from respiratory failure due to propylene glycol inhaling?

You shouldn't ask for disprove studies if you don't provide proof studies.


>You shouldn't ask for disprove studies if you don't provide proof studies.

My point was that we don't know what the long-term effects of vaping are. Because there hasn't been time for the longitudinal studies that will tell us what those effects are.

I requested studies refuting those claims because I know they don't exist. I also know that studies confirming such claims don't exist either.

Making the statement that "...vaping is still unhealthy but less than smoking plant matters" is disingenuous because we have no idea what long-term (note that qualification) effects vaping does or does not have.

It might be that vaping increases human lifespan by 80%. Or it might be that vaping decreases lifespan by 25%. Or it might be that vaping either causes or prevents dementia. We just don't know. It may be that none of those things apply. Who knows? Not me. And not you or anyone else. Yet.

Because vaping hasn't been widely used for long enough to make claims about its long-term effects.

My claims are just as valid as yours ("...vaping is still unhealthy but less than smoking plant matters").

That was my point. My apologies for expecting you to make the conceptual leap and understand the above by making similarly unsupported claims as the one you made. I guess that wasn't the best way to do so. I'll try to do better in the future.

I hope I've cleared up your confusion.


Im not confused. A lot of the context you are inferring is just in your mind.

It's funny to see someone invent a narrative then have a conversation with himself while trying to gaslight another person that they invented the narrative.


I suspect (anecdote) vaping is just as bad if not worse. People vape EVERYWHERE. Almost any place you can't smoke, people still vape. So - that it happens that way makes me think the total exposure is a lurking problem.


The changes seem based on age, which just makes it more imperative that phone manufacturers perform even /more/ reliable age verification...

The business model, incentives, and practices that led them down this road? No, those don't need to change.


I just bought a $50 Android phone, quad core, 8GB RAM, 1 year of mobile service (albeit limited, but free WiFi is everywhere).

Have all the age restriction you want. A kid goes into the store with their lunch money (a few days worth) and they have a valid phone number and an unrestricted device.

Everything requires ID to use? I’m not sure what the answer is, but I agree.


And what will be the penalty when they inevitably fail to make meaningful changes? Another fine as weak as this one? No. The penalty now should be ten or a hundred times as large as this.


Somehow I have no faith that these changes will be enforced, or appropriately drawn up by parties who actually have the knowledge to do so.


Interesting point. Clear and visible warnings similar to tabacco and gambling websites (at least here in NZ) would be great. A clear and explicit call out of the dangers and a direct link on how to get help would be a good place to start.

I really like the idea of small scale social media, that's focused on small groups of like minded people and communities, but damn Facebook is a cesspool of not-that.


Can you elaborate? I checked the news and couldn't find what you're referencing myself.


Two events: Anthropic did end up paying a $1.5B settlement for a case involving the use of pirated books. See Bartz v. Anthropic.

Second, apparently archiving content and providing it to others is risky business. It is often ruled as piracy, see Hachette v. Internet Archive. It went badly for Internet Archive, against common sense.


> It went badly for Internet Archive, against common sense.

not really

they were operating under model when they remotely lended the same amount of books they had (effectively operating as a library)

then they started doing it without any limits whatsoever, which in fact is piracy and illegal

some people with common sense begged them to stop and stay in legal operating area

they refused, got (predictably) sued as publishers were unhappy already about remote library and (as predictably) lost case


Has nothing specific to do with Elon Musk, it's the entire ecosystem.

Why do you assume not wanting to create an account on every platform is "emotionally attached" and a "virtue signal"? Are you familiar with the business model of these sites?

I don't use any of these services. Any service that requires an account to view content, I don't use. So Instagram, Facebook, and now X (via xcancel).


I don't think it's a useful comparison for any sub-60 minute commute when it's a passive mode of transportation vs active.

When I lived in Manhattan, I had a ~35 minute commute by subway. I read a book every week or two, and it was far more productive than anything that happens in a 20 minute drive by car. My commute now is roughly 20 minutes, driving... and it's very stressful.

Beyond 1 hour, the time lost has greater impact on your life (socializing, household chores, family time, etc). Even still, I'd rather 90 minutes in a train than 60 behind the wheel.


> When I lived in Manhattan, I had a ~35 minute commute by subway. I read a book every week or two, and it was far more productive than anything that happens in a 20 minute drive by car. My commute now is roughly 20 minutes, driving... and it's very stressful

Really just shows how different people's experiences are based on location and density

When I was commuting downtown in Calgary, it was either paying for parking downtown and a 20-30 minute drive, or a 60-90 minute transit ride depending on which bus I caught

A 20-30 minute driving commute is basically the norm here. Unless you live quite outside the city.

> Even still, I'd rather 90 minutes in a train than 60 behind the wheel

The tradeoff between transit and driving has never been within 30 minutes for anywhere I've lived, personally. It's always 40+ minutes difference, and that's assuming your bus even shows up on time


I get the feeling that the majority of folks, here, live in the city, nearby expensive suburbs, or work remote. Maybe they take the "Google buses," in the SV area.

Very few HN folks seem aware of what average mensch suburban commute times are like. I've been flat-out called a liar, when I mention what is common knowledge, all over Long Island, that commutes into the city truly suck. It's on the news. It's in the newspapers. It's a standard topic of discussion at social events. Everyone just knows it. I live in the Huntington area, which is around 40 miles from Manhattan. There's no way, even with a Lamborghini, that I'll make it to Manhattan from here, in less than 40 minutes. During COVID, that was briefly possible.

My daily commute, for over 20 years, was north-south (on Long Island), ten miles (16Km). It took exactly 30 minutes, each way.

But someone made a statistic (I suspect commissioned by folks trying to sell suburban real estate), that it takes 27 minutes to get to Manhattan, and I guess we're numbers people, so the number always wins.

> "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"

-Mark Twain


I do a reverse commute from Queens to the Suffolk border. If I leave by 6:30 I can get to work in about 45 minutes From the Belt to the Southern State, about 26 miles total drive. Meanwhile, the opposite lane is a depressing sea of automobiles slowly pouring into the city. A friend of mine lives in Smithtown and it can take him up to 2 hours to drive into the city if he has to.


> and it was far more productive than anything that happens in a 20 minute drive by car

It seems you haven't discovered podcasts yet :)


I've been a hobbyist game dev for years; nothing published.

Over the time I've built a massive collection of assets from various stores and stuff I've built.

The solutions for managing assets seem to be largely in house tools studio build themselves and don't share.

So I'm working on a digital asset management system that plays nicely with the tools I use; unreal engine, unity, and blender.

I don't have anything public yet, but hopefully for September or October edition of this post!


cool!


One thing AI did take away; I love reading source code written by other people. Node modules, plugins, LUA, python scripts... whatever. I loved seeing how people organized their logic, named their variables, the flavor of their comments... all of it. I learned so much diving through the source code of all the major tools.

Now it's all AI generated. You don't know if you're reading a novel human's take on a pattern or an LLM's attempt to reproduce. Worse; even if the AI presented something novel it produces at such a rate it's a needle in a haystack.

I feel cautious of any claim people make about their use of AI. I'm not even anti-AI; I use it. But at minimum wish there were a mechanism to know where the lines were.


You can open linux source tree from 5 years ago and read that for a couple years.

The feeling of helplessness doesn’t come from the fact that you can’t get out of the AI hype but the fact that advertisers have captured the attention of large portions of the population.


> Now it's all AI generated.

I can assure you, it's not. You just need to avoid the areas where this is prevalent.

> You don't know if you're reading a novel human's take on a pattern or an LLM's attempt to reproduce.

In the end of the day, if it's an elegant solution why does it matter! If anything then it sharpens your senses to check whether it's great or trash. A sense that one should have had with human code already, now it just feels more important (but it really isn't because it was important before too).


It matters because some people view code as a human art. Sure, AI can also probably produce a good sounding song, but that doesn't mean I will view it in the same way as a song created by a human.


"just ticking up a version number" drastically understates the headaches of Material UI over the years.

Not a boring application, a very large application -- each major version update was a tedious process because they completely upended many APIs.

We've migrated to shadcn, and upgrades are now easy; we can upgrade a single component -- add the new ones free.

With MaterialUI we had to update EVERYTHING to their new APIs to be able to take advantage of the new features anywhere.

With shadcn we can be selective.


This sounds like a problem with Material UI being undisciplined with API compatibility, rather than a problem with the broader approach itself.


MUI release codemods for their major version bumps to ease the migration. Those and TypeScript take out most of the issues with upgrading.

There were a couple of rough migrations though.


All the independent cleaner's I could find wanted $400 a week to clean. I've tried 2 different cleaners and fired them both after 4 weeks. They only spend about ~3 hours here a week, so I'm paying over $130/hr... and they didn't even do that great of a job. I guess I should try a third? This robot is tempting though.


... they pay low income people $2-5, literally, to be the face of their scalping. It's like gig work for those people. The worker uses their own name, address, and credit card even to make the purchase. The scalper reimburses them + $5.


Low-income people have their own credit card? I'm having trouble picturing the situation where someone willing to accept gig work for a few $ can have a credit card that allows a 4-figure spend. That seems like a very bad deal for the bank to me.


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

Search: