I think there’s a lot of good reasons to, but hardly any incentive to.

People who disable JS are probably a very tiny minority and of those who consume ads, an even smaller one.

> The crash had fractured his skull. At the time, neither man wore head protection, as aviation helmets were not yet standard equipment.

It’s kinda wild to me how reliable we are at having to learn the hard way to wear a helmet for each new sport or endeavour.

So I looked up and discovered that bicycle helmets became a common thing in the 1970s. Perhaps motorcycles were earlier. But either way I have to ask - what did people wear helmets for in 1909? Im thinking that most helmet usage came later.

Helmet usage, as in protective headware for general melee war and one on one fighting, dates back to the bronze age.

Hard hats, of assorted kinds for general protection while working, date back to the 1890s and became more commonplace ~1920 (ish) onwards in construction, mining, and ship building industries.

* Helmets: https://www.battlemerchant.com/en/blog/the-evolution-of-hist...

* Hard Hats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_hat

I suspect there are more early European hard hat examples to be found than are cited in the wikipedia article.

I think they were fairly common for things like gladiatorial games, jousting, etc.

In fairness, quite a few failure modes for aircraft do not matter much if you are wearing a helmet or not.

You’d be surprised. Small aircraft crashes, if control is not lost before hitting the ground, are much more similar to car crashes than to large airliner crashes. For example, a recent “innovation” that saved a lot of lives was making shoulder belts (as opposed to lap only belts) standard.

Next up: airbags..!

We’re were photocopying photocopies. But I guess if you’re taking two copies and tracing a third that is based on them but doesn’t actually have to be a facsimile, it gives nature more flexibility?

Like I’m not sure it actually works this way but I can intuit why it’s possible, given the new life doesn’t have to be an exact replication.

The SA Forums model does accomplish the goals of filtering out noise, but then you’re stuck with a stagnant community of “the right people.”

Unironically slashdot's moderating and meta-moderating is the best long-term system I've seen.

Everything else seems to eventually cause new blood to dry up.

I remember reading slashdot but what is their system? Is there a separate set of mods that moderate the moderators?

You get points to mod other people and other people can meta-mod your posts.

The key is that both were randomly assigned to users - you’d never know if you’d open a thread and be a moderator. If you posted in the thread you couldn’t moderate.

And about the same frequency you’d be assigned to metamoderate, basically being asked if a moderator’s “vote” was a good one or not (you didn’t have to fully agree you’d do the same, just that it wasn’t bad).

Someone who scored low in meta moderation would get less or no moderator chances.

I stopped reading slashdot along time ago.. I wonder why.

I think what makes them work (for me too!) is that they're not simply random for the sake of being random. They're a oddball but there's clearly a shared theme/style and they're well-executed.

I'm not sure I'm interested in anything they're selling, but after what felt like 15 years of "young California hipster", I think this style catches my attention at least somewhat.

I remember reading somewhere that to target gen-z/alpha advertising shouldn't be direct or in your face but instead present things in an "organic" way that makes it seem cool, without the appearance of trying too hard to sell you something.

I guess the target audience they're going for is people who already have iPhones/iPads but would have bought a chromebook for school instead. This seems to be a reversal from their previous "what's a computer"-style ads that tried to sell iPads as the replacement for personal computing.

> I remember reading somewhere that to target gen-z/alpha advertising shouldn't be direct or in your face but instead present things in an "organic" way that makes it seem cool, without the appearance of trying too hard to sell you something.

On one hand, wasn't that the premise of the "iPod people" ads?

On the other thand... you're right to say that this is _very_ indirect. In an internet saturated with advertising, I guess there's nothing like just making entiretainment.

That really sounds like micro managing jr. developers.

I wonder if the interface for this kind of thing might be better presented as a sort of JIRA ticket system. Define a dependency graph of work with the ability to break down any ticket into more tickets or change priority or relationships etc.

Though I think the micro manage part still doesn’t fit into that model. You’d need the code-level view and not just a ticket covering the tests that satisfy the spec and performance goals.

I think a lot of people feel this tension. Programming used to be mostly about building things directly. You write code, run it, fix it, repeat. With agents it starts to shift toward supervision: define the task, watch the output, correct the drift. It's a different kind of work. Sometimes it feels less like programming and more like managing a very fast team that never gets tired but also never really understands the goal unless you spell it out extremely carefully. I suspect a lot of developers still enjoy the "building" part more than the "supervising" part.

> That really sounds like micro managing jr. developers.

That's how I tend to describe AI to a lot of non-technical people (I actually generally say it's like having an really fresh intern who can read technical docs insanely fast but needs a lot of supervision).

That's a really good analogy. The interesting part is that the "intern" is not only fast, but also extremely confident. A human intern usually hesitates, asks questions, or signals uncertainty when they are unsure. Agents often produce very clean-looking output even when the reasoning behind it is shaky. So part of the supervision isn't just checking the result, but trying to detect when the confidence is misleading.

Maybe. Probably? But I also sense a fallacy here. I could get a new job tomorrow. Maybe it took me 8 years to find that job and I didn’t realize that because I was employed the whole time.

Does that make sense?

People wonder why something was picked over before committing to it, that's all it comes down to

Focus on what you can control, and you can control the perception of that. If you are interested in money, professional validation, and corporate structure, go that way.

You can try to alter the cultural fundamental assumptions when you're done.

I didn't come up with that idea, it has been passed down through generations of workers, and by multitudes of co-workers.

Unnecessary abstractions are bad. These feel like those. Which leads you to wondering why they exist. And oftentimes it’s just like why bad developers preserve those unnecessary abstractions: job preservation.

They are in-group signifiers. And when someone uses them and doesn't understand the lingo, they are clearly an interloper. Its amazing to me that people do this for benefit but anywhere they do, you are certainly in a business or institution that is dying (perhaps slowly but still dying).

It was really easy to close out my ChatGPT account and switch to Claude. I was really only there out of inertia. I don’t do anything beyond occasional free tier stuff like rubber ducking but so far Claude is so much better.

I had already been trying Le Chat for months, for similar reasons.

So far it's been slart enough for what I need, so closing my ChatGPT subscription was a really easy decision to make.

I prefer the claude code CLI interface for everything anyway. It is actually more convenient. Memory is local files, type one word to use rather than navigate.

So long as those who have it deem it legal to perpetuate.

They define what's legal.

States are the most prolific users of violence by far.