Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mingus88's commentslogin

It is actually worse than those examples. Pip and npm may be insecure, and that is a fault of those tools, but most user expect secure package managers and should demand it

Telling users it’s fine to raw dog arbitrary commands directly into their shell is dangerous and lowers the bar for all security. In fact by even making this comparison you are communicating that you are complacent with pip and npm’s issues and why shouldn’t you just execute arbitrary commands without even a second glance? Security doesn’t matter!

And for the record, even with pip and npm being the way that they are, they are still better than a curl pipe because they are versioned. In the case I get a compromised deployment I understand immediately if I got hit by the affected package, and the entire repo can then be audited. Not the case when I’m just curling whatever the internet wants to send into my process space


This article expresses the issue so poorly I almost think it’s corporate propaganda

The actual issue that is novel is dynamic pricing. Not just a location based rate, but surveillance that raises your individual price. In other words, at the same store, with the same item, we pay different prices because the store has determined you will pay more than me.

Seattle is drafting legislation right now to outlaw this practice and predictably big supermarket chains are out there saying it is a war on discounts


It would have to if it makes (analog) sound waves from (digital) files

Like a fancy dac. The specs are very pedestrian for a music device.

Apple’s $10 dongle has measured better than many fancy DACs and its silly to spend more than that on a portable setup.

I say this as someone who has spent thousands on headphones, amps and DACs over the years. It’s a silly hobby that is far too expensive for what you get out of it


Classic iPods work the same way

It’s not even true if you want to be pedantic about it

The quote is actually “the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best time is today”

29 years ago, 28 years ago … all better than today. There are an infinite number of times better (and worse) than today.


Because the only metric that matters for social media is engagement, and a war against active account, no matter the purpose, would make that line go down.

Also, shill accounts prove to advertisers that the platform works to make money. That’s the whole reason Reddit exists.


YCombinator is not a social company. They actually do a ton to try to stop this stuff, it's just hard.

Maybe they weren't before they IPO'd.

> Because the only metric that matters for social media is engagement

True, but what if a third party existed to measure and compare other metrics that users would actually care about across popular platforms?


They really could have just led with the “scripts piping curl into bash” and that’s all I need to hear

Of course he rehearsed every keynote. You would be a fool to do any performance without some kind of rehearsal, unless it’s improv.

You can search YouTube for Steve Jobs demo fail for plenty of examples of it not going smoothly. He practiced but he still did live demos and had plenty of opportunities to mess up


Check out some off Connor O’Malley’s YouTube videos lately. He’s a collaborator with Tim Robinson and has an absurdist take with heavy AI used

What I’m saying is he made an explicit artistic choice to use AI and it’s an integral part of the work. You can’t tell a creative person they aren’t allowed to do something.

AI is going to be used, and already is used, by creative people for legitimate uses that only enhance the statements they are making.

The fact that lazy people are using it as a shortcut for a lazy audience is not an indictment of AI


> You can’t tell a creative person they aren’t allowed to do something.

That sums it up for me. This "new thing appears, become hot, gets overplayed, people hate it" cycle happens over and over, but that is trendy norms. Meanwhile, creative use will continue to go up and to the right as people learn how to better wield AI to express themselves.

The future won't be "AI in art is bad" but "AI as a tool of artists is powerful, AI as an artist is nonsensical".


Yeah, I'm not saying there's no artistic value in using AI.

I'm saying that less intentional use has less artistic merit. AI hasn't made an impact on the toil involved in the creative process. It's instead another brush.

It all boils down to the fact that humans are not outsourcing anything to AI. If anything, it just raises the bar and makes humans have to work harder. Decision fatigue was already a problem long before this era of AI, and AI can make it worse.

That's exactly what happened to music with beat quantization and autotune. People just zoomed in, nerded out, got snobbier, stopped seeing the forest for the trees, and ultimately produced very boring music from exhaustion. Not only that, but a ton of nuance was lost. We took so much agency away from the performance and made it all march in line and in time. It's up to the audience where the breaking point is.


> It's instead another brush.

Exactly. AI generates imitations of the past. So does a paint brush at its fundamental.


We know our society doesn’t value creative people. It never has, really. The greats of the classical era all had sponsors because it has never been workable for most people to earn their living in a creative field. Today you have to come from generational wealth pretty much.

But also people have bad taste. AI music really only works on people who don’t critically listen to it. Most people just seem to want a catchy hook and the general structure of a pop song, and that’s how Spotify gets away with it.

But you ask people to pay even $1 for a track they will listen to hundreds of times? No thanks.

So people get what they deserve.


But that is entirely different claim. People do not want to pay an optional expenses - like paying an artist to paint a mural when you do not really have to. Or opting for piracy instead of buying a book or a movie. The rhetoric of companies and ai fans was not that. It was pure open hostility with "hahaha we will destroy those losers" basically. Their claim here is not about just about the market or really about the market. It came across as if the "obsoleteness" itself was the goal regardless of monetary gains/looses. And as if "people creating" were something negative that will finally be stopped.

> But you ask people to pay even $1 for a track they will listen to hundreds of times? No thanks.

People used to buy albums or listen to the radio for free. If anything, paying Spotify means that quite a lot of people pay more then before for music ... however it is spotify who benefits rather then artists.

Just like with studios which used to have captured market and earn more then artists themselves.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

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

Search: