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

All of the "solo green field projects" I let LLMs mostly write, despite supplying the scaffolding, structure and specific implementation details as code, prompts or context, I can't tell you much about 6+ months later, except for the parts I did write.

It's like I never wrote them, because I didn't. I've got the gist of them, but it's the same way I get the gist of something like Numpy: I know how it works theoretically, but certainly not specifically enough to jump in and write some working Fortran that fixes bugs or adds features.

I now have a bunch of stalled projects I'm not very familiar with. I no longer do solo green field projects that way.


It was the case in the recent past, see how many artists came out of Laurel Canyon and whose families happened to own properties nearby.

It's a tenet of the eschatology from the singularity ideology that was developed on online forums over the last few decades.

The viewpoint is baked into those assumptions and boils down to the power of exponentials and poor application of game theory.


It's important that developers have an accurate mental model of how things work, are structured and why.

LLMs promote a decoupling of mental models and the actual codebase.

As much as some may want to believe, just reviewing what the LLM outputs is not equivalent to thinking about implementation details, motivations, exactly how and why things are, and how and why they work the way they do, and then writing it yourself. The process itself is what instills that knowledge in you.


Exactly. This is what many ai-sloppers ignore. Mental models are crucial. Nothing substitutes for having the program itself in your brain and being able to "mentally debug" it when something breaks.

There are computing and communication devices designed for kids to use.

Stop handing your kids brand new iPads and complaining, especially if you aren't willing to use parental controls.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but Apple's parental controls just don't work.

Another step towards "Insert your verification probe to continue"

I'm sure it will actually be "drink verification can to continue".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36542487


I've never seen efforts to make laws as damn bulletproof like this.

They must really be scared of the voice and power anonymity gives normal people who wouldn't normally have it.


It helps if you're doing mundane things and want to help people who need to mix their sensitive traffic with it.

More people "legitimately" using Tor makes it less likely to have its exit nodes outright blocked, as well, and assuming all traffic from them is malicious.


That's charitable, but even then you probably want to avoid fingerprinting...

They've been consuming 15+ years of anti-Mozilla rants anytime it or Firefox are mentioned online.

It's how you get things like "Browser monocultures are an issue, so don't use Chrome (Blink), use Brave (Chromium (Blink)) instead!" said in earnest.


I’ve been using Firefox for 20+ years and continue to do so, but let’s not pretend that Firefox hasn’t been an embarrassing shit show for most of the past 15.

10x better than safari and it won’t consume all my RAM like google, so not sure it you’re just repeating what you heard or if you mean what you said

I’ve been a Safari user for over 20 years. Every year or so I go on a journey to switch to something else. I’ve use Firefox (LibreWolf, IceWeasle, etc), Chrome (Edge, Arc, etc), Camino, OmniWeb, Orion, Opera (I was primarily an Opera user before Safari), and more. At work I use Edge for weird corporate reasons that I’m not thrilled about.

I always end up coming back to Safari for personal use. It seems to do the best job getting out of my way. I am annoyed by how Safari now handles browser extensions. I’d like them to take a page out of Orion’s book and support both Firefox and Chrome extensions. However, I generally have very few extensions, as they tend to slow things down, so this has been a relatively minor issue. The main things I’ve wanted extensions for in other browsers (like word lookup) have come out of the box in Safari (or Apple platforms as a whole) for quite a long time.


You can likely run Firefox Portable from PortableApps.com on your corporate Windows machine. Just make sure you're not running afoul of IT policies. Disclosure: I make it

I’m on a Mac these days at work. I used to use and recommend PortableApps a lot back when I was on Windows, thanks for making it.

> 10x better than safari and it won’t consume all my RAM like google

Using the 3 regularly, no, Firefox is not "10 times better than Safari". Though, yes, Chrome(ium) is a ressource hog.


Safari is better than Chrome and FF in enough ways I'd argue it can be considered the best of the three, even to people in tech. The dev tools are just way behind.

I'd recommend checking out WaterFox. It's what I switched to when I finally got sick & tired of Mozilla's shit.

i really feel like trying this out as a quasi-firefox user, but i've really started to love and appreciate Zen for its UI :( wonder if there's a Waterfox X Zen alternative.

EDIT: whoops, should've scrolled down a bit on the website, looks like Waterfox has vertical tabs as well. damn, probably going to try to migrate to it sometime soon...

EDIT2: of course supports firefox extensions as well, perfect.


Firefox has vertical tabs as well, and it is a lot less bloated that the extension one I was using.

People keep saying this like it's just conventional wisdom we all supposedly agree with. I think it's a string of tech articles and spiraling comment sections searching for drama that's kind of been a self-perpetuating phenomenon over the past 3 or 4 years the majority of which I think has been extremely unfair and mostly just based on vibes. If you actually scroll through HN and read the criticisms, they tend to trail off into vague phrases like "all the stuff they've been doing".

If people read the release notes instead of the comment sections, not only would they have a lot more specific knowledge of the work going into the browser but they wouldn't be locked in this cycle of outrage and escalation that normally you only see in YouTube comment sections.


Ok, then. What shitshow? Does it not pale in comparison to Chrome and Edge?

If Mozilla fired its CEO for a private political donation from 10 years earlier, it will not hesitate to do much worse to its users. Mozilla isn’t on the good side here.

He’s the founder of Brave, by the way.


This just makes me support Firefox more

It makes you intolerant, as you are unable to comprehend the opinion of other normal people in your society.

The action of performing real-life drastic sanctions against people you don’t tolerate is an extremism.

And it is the general opinion of most Mozilla idealists. Mozilla is a political project, and is dangerous to our democracy.


[flagged]


Brave also got caught hijacking links and swapping in their own affiliate codes

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we...


Not quite. We had a couple domains that—when typed into the address bar—would offer a referral-option in the browser UI. If you quickly hit the enter key, you might mistakenly have selected one of those unintentionally. This was a UX bug on our end as the feature wasn't intended to match complete URLs.

The goal was to offer folks a means of supporting the development of a privacy-preserving browser, at no cost to them. We blogged about the feature at https://brave.com/blog/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/, and ultimately disabled it by default. But there was never any "hijacking of links," or "swapping of affiliate codes".

The truth is less exciting, I know.


The back and forth with Eich on Twitter and him defending it as ethical when it was first reported on painted a different picture at the time for me: https://imgur.com/a/MotmTGh

When pushback increased, it seemed like it was addressed and then retroactively labeled a bug.

Your own dismissiveness of the issue on Twitter, including posting an image which didn't reflect the actual user experience in Brave stable at the time, left a similarly bad taste: https://imgur.com/a/x9smj6M


That was when I thought the attribute was added only when the user searched, but it was added even to a FQDN which should not have been done.

We didn't make anything from this bug, fixed it quickly, it's a black mark on our shield still but it wasn't some mustache-twirling grand plan, believe me. It was a blunder.


16-18 years ago. Is bigotry always a permanent condition?

At that time, it was 10 years ago, which is what I was responding to.

    Is bigotry always a permanent condition?
Yes, people famously change more as they get older. Eich was already a man in his 40s at that point in time. He also doubled-down instead of acknowledging any wrongdoing.

Has he apologized?

You know, you're condemning most of California. The measure he supported won the vote. Would you like to drive all of them out of their jobs?

I wouldn't want to use anything that earn them money, if I could avoid it. That it was half the population doesn't change my view.

I understand that it is difficult for me to shun (which is basically what I'm talking about) so many people, or to even know if they should be shunned, but it would definitely be my preference.


My man, we do live in a society.

As if apologizing to the cancel mob ever worked out of anyone. All that does is affirm the mob.

Your perspective only confirms that it’s popular within the Mozilla audience to ban people for their political opinion when it’s slightly out of currently-approved opinions. TODAY. Not 18 years ago. Today.

Making Mozilla a politically-extremist organization intolerant to other opinions than theirs, and thus incompatible with being a steward of the global web.


Then maybe Mozilla should stop doing things that upset the users that actually care to use Firefox in a vain attempt to chase the average Chrome user.

at least we can use ublock and turn off ai

Or simply they haven't heard much about it at all, don't care, and chalk it up to OP being some sort of an odd hipster.

Man, so many things could be better if people cared.


The more time goes on the more I feel like I live on a different planet. Even things like "shouldn't you be able to decide what software you run on the stuff you own?" gets blank stares.

Hello fellow extraterrestrial

Old heads checking in... Back in my day, we had an exposed file hierarchy and we liked it!

I still remember "oh my friend's iphone has a nice camera, how can I send myself that picture he took with bluetooth?" and being... a bit surprised that it wasn't really possible.

Is anyone disagreeing with that statement?

Yeah, among other things when I'm supportive of sideloading and disappointed that it's being greatly restricted on Android.

I mean ... frankly, and I say this as a guy who's used solely Firefox since before it was Firefox all the way until 2025 when I finally got sick & tired of their shit... (now on WaterFox because I refuse to submit to the Google browser monopoly)

... Mozilla absolutely did this to themselves. Come think of it, they really remind me of what Microsift's been doing with Windows.


I still don't understand what problem you guys have with Firefox. I really don't, and comments like yours are always very vague and seem to assume that it's obvious.

For me Firefox is (slightly) better than is used to be, not by a wide margin but it's not gotten worse either.

I've been running it since it was Phoenix so I think my experience is at least somewhat valid, which is why I'm so confused by these comments.


I apologize; my comment is vague because I wrote it on my phone, and didn't feel like writing super-long text there. I hate typing on a phone.

Anyway, for a browser that keeps touting how it's privacy-centered, they sure as hell love doing horrible things.

Cliqz is a great example; here's a direct quote from Mozilla (emphasis mine):

> "Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit."

This was not opt-in. It was automatically enabled for a percentage of users in (I believe) Germany. Not only is it a blatant breach of the privacy promise, it's such a massive breach it's almost on the cartoon villainy level.

But for me personally, the final straw was the yet-another-pointless-UI-change at or around v103 (or thereabouts, I don't recall the exact version). When they removed icons from a bunch of menus and went with the rounded style. That version's UI redesign worsened accessibility in so many ways, and complaints by visually-impaired users were simply ignored. All for the sake of a UI redesign yet again.

I consider myself an advanced user, and even I get annoyed by the changes. Now imagine someone not tech savvy, e.g. my mother, trying to use Firefox, when the UI suddenly changes between versions. I can adapt to changes far more easily than them (not that I want to, but Mozilla keeps wanting to force it), but for some, it's going to be a struggle. For that reason alone, I can no longer recommend Firefox to non-tech-savvy people (and I used to!).

Meanwhile, Chrome, although I dislike its UI, has kept it relatively stable throughout. People get used to it, and it stays that way. They don't have to learn new things or change their habits. Now, there are a myriad of issues with Chrome, but constant UI rug-pulls aren't one of them.

That's why I'm comparing Mozilla to Microsoft. They ignore users, and shove changes nobody asked for down their throats --- even if it makes things worse for everyone. The UI change, for example, is kind of like the new context menu in Windows Explorer. On top of that, they tout being privacy-focused everywhere in the marketing, but then their actions show the exact opposite.


The main problem is consent. Mozilla doesn't understand it. Lots of other problems flow from that.

Are you referring to technical implementation or the poor anti-privacy decisions they keep making when you say 'slightly better'? I have not given up, but I am profoundly disappointed and for somebody who says they have used FF for so long, it feels like I am being gaslit when you say they are peachy.

People have problems with what they choose to program, not the quality of their code. I too have used FF since the beginning, but switched to Waterfox last year (it took me about two years to make that decision - I didn't make it lightly). I chose WF in large part because its profile remains compatible with FF so I can switch back if they calm the F down and start acting normal again for long enough to rebuild some trust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mozilla_Corporati... - start at the end for most recent.

Also go to the website of any one of the FF forks and read their reasons for existing. For example:

https://www.waterfox.com/#why-waterfox


> Are you referring to technical implementation or the poor anti-privacy decisions they keep making when you say 'slightly better'?

Which ones are you talking about? I'm talking about Firefox, not the Mozilla Corp to be clear.


They are obvious in the links, no time for silly games.

You’re not alone. Been a user for years and I still don’t get the hate.

Having said that, I keep a copy of Ungoogled Chromium for those websites that refuse to test against FF.


FWIW: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48020960

Plus there's the Wikipedia link another user posted.


Could you list some of the major grievances you have with Firefox? I haven't been following the news very closely


its almost like Google, a marketing company with a serious requirement for data mining, could be talking shit about Mozilla...

Why would Google talk shit about their subsidiary's product.

This is the case. The advent of libraries like Rich and others certainly helped, along with the trend of Rust TUIs for system programming/lack of good GUI options.

Better terminal emulators probably played a role too. In particular the newish Windows Terminal. The older cmd.exe console only supported Windows Console API. WinTerm has full VT and ANSI support, much better font rendering, and less importantly, mouse support and Sixel support.

This makes it much easier to build cross-platform TUIs. It used to be a chore, now it's probably easier than most GUI frameworks. (Possibly with the exception of Electron, but that comes with a different set of trade-offs.)


> The older cmd.exe console

You are confusing cmd.exe with conhost.exe

The console is conhost.exe. Conhost (Console Host) is the same kind of program as Windows Terminal, iTerm2, Konsole, Ghostty or Linux Console (the console that Linux uses on text mode)

The shell is cmd.exe (Command Prompt). This is the same kind of program as PowerShell (powershell.exe or the cross platform pwsh.exe), bash, zsh, fish etc. It's also similar to any TUI program such as Far Manager, mc (Midnight Commander), lazygit etc.


Yes, and in fact even Windows conhost hast supported ANSI escapes since 2016.

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

Search: