This only works if your business is large enough that you and all your competitors aren't expected to have humans doing everything already, but small enough that going AI won't boost your valuation by much. My intuition is that the intersection is pretty much empty.
Not GP, but there are massive economic incentives both to make car driving as unregulated and to make forklift driving as regulated as possible, even though from pure injury risk standpoint it should be the other way around.
People who break the social contract are the ones responsible for breaking the social contract, not the ones who take steps in response to social contract being broken.
The contract behind open source was something like (GPL):
"If you copy my work, you should share your work too."
or at minimum (MIT):
"If you copy my work, you should credit me."
I think it is no longer under dispute that the legal contract is satisfied by LLMs. The AI companies won and will continue to win.
But we are talking about a social contract, which is not quite the same thing. The social contract is what leads some devs who previously enjoyed publishing their work openly to no longer feel the same way. What did the authors mean by "copy"? Did they mean literally CTRL+C, CTRL+V or something broader?
This is a matter of opinion which only each individual creator can answer. For me, copying meant something like:
"To reproduce the function of my work, dependent on my having published it, without effort nor understanding of your own"
Ten years ago this basically required doing a CTRL+C, CTRL+V so there was no need to be more specific. Anybody who did enough work to, say, rewrite in another language (with that language's idioms), met the bar of clause 3. Now AI enables a form of "copying" that matches my definition, without the user even being aware of whose works they are copying. It perfectly launders the origins of its output. It can write an FFmpeg clone in Rust for you that would appear to be a novel work.
Of course, I cannot say that my own little bits and pieces of open source code would make a scratch in AI's capability, were it removed.
But I do strongly believe that if all the code that was published by authors with the same mindset was unavailable, Claude would be a far weaker developer.
> "If you copy my work, you should share your work too."
Not exactly. The GPL way is that you should share my work under the same terms if you want to share it, even if modifying it.
You are not required to share anything if you don't actually share anything, and just run it yourself. That's where all the criticism towards cloud providers who freely use FLOSS is directed.
> But we are talking about a social contract, which is not quite the same thing. The social contract is what leads some devs who previously enjoyed publishing their work openly to no longer feel the same way.
There is clearly a misalignment in expectations from some FLOSS enthusiasts. The main FLOSS licenses focus exclusively on distribution, but their expectations somehow extend well beyond distribution. We hear those FLOSS enthusiasts criticize and attack companies for using software exactly according to their terms, and somehow that is framed as abuse if said users happen to be bigger than some arbitrary boundary.
> But we are talking about a social contract, which is not quite the same thing. The social contract is what leads some devs who previously enjoyed publishing their work openly to no longer feel the same way.
Perhaps this illustrates a fissure that was always lurking under the surface, then. The social contract that I've personally always attributed to FOSS communities was that attempting to restrict how people downstream of you use code is illegitimate, and that licenses like the GPL were meant to use copyright law to achieve something that resembles the state of affairs that might exist if copyright didn't exist in the first place. That's what the whole concept of "copyleft" always seemed to imply.
Now we have a new class of technologies that is admittedly fraught with a wide range of risks and pitfalls, but also a lot of promise to enable people to actually put the "four freedoms" into practice in ways they couldn't before, and we're seeing people who have normative opinions about AI derived from other, unrelated principles trying to circle the wagons and exclude those use cases. That is what seems like a breach of the social contract as I've always understood it.
> Did they mean literally CTRL+C, CTRL+V or something broader?
Given that FOSS licenses were always constructed to function within applicable copyright law, I don't see how they could mean anything else. "Literal CTRL+C, CTRL+V" is the only thing copyright has ever applied to, and the whole point of "copyleft" was to lessen the restrictions on even that.
> "Literal CTRL+C, CTRL+V" is the only thing copyright has ever applied to
This is extremely false. Copyright additionally grants you exclusive control over the production and distribution of derivative works.
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
A training set is just an anthology, and the training process is condensation. That makes the weights a derivative work of every work in the training set.
Now, there's a separate discussion to be had about whether that derivative work meets the criteria for fair use, but that's it's own tangent.
> This is extremely false. Copyright additionally grants you exclusive control over the production and distribution of derivative works.
A derivative work is a work that itself includes copyrighted content from the original work.
That is to say that for something to be a derivative work, some measure of its content must be "CTRL-C, CTRL-V" from the originating work.
Something that's merely inspired by another work, or draws underlying themes or factual knowledge from it, is not a derivative work.
> A training set is just an anthology,
Which might make the training set itself a derivative work, but works created by using the model trained on that anthology are a different matter.
> and the training process is condensation.
No, it isn't. It's the creation of a new work that represents patterns extrapolated or interpolated from the data set, without the resulting model actually including any of the copyrighted elements of the work.
The underlying ideas and facts in the original work were never protected by copyright. Only the specific fixed form of expression is copyrightable.
Someone who looks at a dozen code examples in public repos to learn how to do e.g. a quick sort, then upon understanding the logic flow of the quick sort algorithm, writes his own quick sort implementation is not creating a derivative work of the code in the repos he exampled. And the way LLMs work is much more similar to that process than to the "compressed anthology" concept you're describing.
> A derivative work is a work that itself includes copyrighted content from the original work.
If you put a GPL C program through Emscripten to run in a browser the output doesn't include the original C code but it's surely a derivative work.
> Someone who looks at a dozen code examples in public repos to learn how to do e.g. a quick sort, then upon understanding the logic flow of the quick sort algorithm, writes his own quick sort implementation is not creating a derivative work of the code in the repos he exampled. And the way LLMs work is much more similar to that process than to the "compressed anthology" concept you're describing.
This is undoubtedly the core of the disagreement. Humans can learn from what they have seen, appreciate it, understand it, and draw on that experience in what they create. They do this without being considered ripoff artists, so why not machines that simulate the "same" thing automatically?
To me the answer is simply that humans are special. Human thought and human effort makes it creativity when a human does it, copying when a machine does it. It's a double standard I am perfectly willing to accept. I am unabashedly biased in this regard.
That may seem remarkably unfair to the machines, or like a cop-out. I just carved out a hardcoded special case for humans, and my whole philosophical reasoning is "because I said so". But how fair do we want to be? After all, if you want to treat a machine exactly like a human who learns from prior art to create new art, then the ownership of the new art would also belong to the machine. Not to the person who prompts it.
> Perhaps this illustrates a fissure that was always lurking under the surface, then(...)
Yes, I do think there has always been such a fissure. People publish OSS code for many reasons, often a blend of multiple reasons. There are selfish reasons such as the desire for one's work to be recognized, or even the hope of getting better employment through showing ones' skill or making something companies will pay for support on. There are social reasons like the desire to collaborate with others. There are altruistic benefit-of-all-mankind reasons like Richard Stallman said "...restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program."
It sounds like your view of things is limited mostly to that last version of FOSS, the copyleft style. But even adherents of that style, I think, are not too happy with AI consumption of their code. For one, it allows laundering of the copyleft license so their work goes into closed-source products that are never shared. And for two, if your idea of OSS is that we all put our contributions into the great shared river of human achievements to benefit the world, it is disappointing to see that river funneled into a giant waterwheel of profit for a half dozen trillion dollar companies charging rent for its bounty.
> Given that FOSS licenses were always constructed to function within applicable copyright law, I don't see how they could mean anything else.
I agree from a legal standpoint. I cannot enforce my personal definition of copying nor do I expect that to become possible. It was just conveniently aligned with the reality of how copying software worked in the past, and no longer is and never will be again. That doesn't mean I will be writing OSS software with a new made-up unenforceable license. It just means, like OP, I'll weigh differently whether I want to bother releasing stuff at all.
> It sounds like your view of things is limited mostly to that last version of FOSS, the copyleft style.
No, I'm well aware of the different motivations for and approaches to FOSS. I'm mostly focusing on the copyleft/GNU GPL side of the discussion here because that's the side of the house where most of ideas of a social contract and desire to see a specific ecosystem develop have been located. People on the MIT/BSD side of things, which has always had a much more direct "do whatever you want" ethos, are not the ones I'd expect to be making these arguments in the first place.
> For one, it allows laundering of the copyleft license so their work goes into closed-source products that are never shared.
I'd agree that someone using an LLM to create a deterministic transcription of someone else's work is indeed violating the license. But I think the argument goes beyond that, into using LLMs in any way at all.
> That doesn't mean I will be writing OSS software with a new made-up unenforceable license. It just means, like OP, I'll weigh differently whether I want to bother releasing stuff at all.
That's a reasonable position, and from the perspective of examining whether the current LLM climate is sapping motivation to participate in FOSS, I can understand where you're coming from.
But to that point, I'd argue that if your motivation was to gain recognition, participate in a community, etc. then you're going to lose those things by keeping your code private anyway, whereas you won't necessarily lose those things just because an LLM was trained on your code. If you contribute to a popular project, people were almost certainly already using your work to do things you don't approve of -- if that didn't take away your motivation, why would LLMs do much worse?
> The social contract that I've personally always attributed to FOSS communities was that attempting to restrict how people downstream of you use code is illegitimate,
That's wrong. What on earth gave you that impression when the licenses specifically set constraints on what downstream can do (from "release derivatives as open" to "put me in the credits").
Which part of which open source licenses gave you the impression that there were no restrictions?
> That's wrong. What on earth gave you that impression when the licenses specifically set constraints on what downstream can do (from "release derivatives as open" to "put me in the credits").
These are restrictions on redistribution, not use. And they're there to make sure that derivative works can't themselves impose restrictions on use.
No one consented to training llms, as the op clearly implies, if they had been asked they would have declined to do so. As would all of the many copyright holders who are in the process of suing the model companies.
Are you asking how AI coding agents, the companies selling them and the individuals using them break the FOSS social contract (copyleft, attribution, upstreaming), or are you disputing that they do?
There seems to be an implicit premise here that any work generated by an LLM whose training data includes a particular bit of code itself constitutes a redistribution of that code. I've yet to encounter any strong arguments substantiating this premise as a general principle, and my own suspicion is that it is not valid as a general principle, given the nature of how LLMs operate.
It's certainly possible that specific instances of LLMs lazily copy-pasting code from public repos may exist, and the extent to which this is happening is something that can be substantiated by empirical examples, so if you have any to point to, I'd be interested in looking at them. However, where this is happening, it ought to be regarded as a failure modality of LLMs, and not something that implicates the underlying nature of LLMs, given that their intended purpose is to function as stochastic generators that do not merely copy-paste input data.
My initial feeling here is that using open-source code to train LLMs is not per se a violation of the generally accepted FOSS social contract, but rather that attempting to restrict specific use cases of FOSS-licensed code on the basis of normative opinions unrelated to the license terms is a violation, or at least a rejection, of that social contract. I'm not fully committed to this position, though, and would welcome well-reasoned arguments to the contrary.
Yes but my answer would be different. It can be either about what coding agents do (and you'll see that it breaks the social contract), or it can be about what the FOSS social contract is (and you'll argue that coding agents don't break it.) Lo and behold, it was the latter.
> There seems to be an implicit premise here that any work generated by an LLM whose training data includes a particular bit of code itself constitutes a redistribution of that code.
Not any work. But if a specific work was generated based on a specific open source work, then according to the social contract that binds non-AI code generators such as transpilers, the output is derivative and should follow the license of that open source work.
There's also the question of whether the model itself is a redistribution. For every other lossy compression algorithm in history, the answer is a resounding yes. Is a model meaningfully different from a hypercompressed corpus of its learning data?
The social contract of the open source (not to be confused with the legal contract of GPL, MIT etc.) is that developers give users software that they can use and modify in any way they want, and in exchange the users give the developer recognition and help with development and maintance, as well as give each other the assurance that the software will remain available to them and any future users.
AI gives the user all the benefits of using open source software with none of the obligations that come from using open source software. Developer gains nothing from going open source. It makes no sense for any developer to go open source. Social comtract breaks down, and it's all because AI users didn't hold up their half of the bargain.
> But if a specific work was generated based on a specific open source work, then according to the social contract that binds non-AI code generators such as transpilers, the output is derivative and should follow the license of that open source work.
I don't disagree with the premise that any LLM that is cloning code wholesale from a third-party repo is creating a derivative work, and the license terms apply to it.
But I also don't agree that non-AI code generators such as transpilers are in the same category as LLMs -- a deterministic process that is simply parsing input from a single source and outputting it in a new form is not the same thing as a stochastic process that interpolates patterns from multiple sources and then uses those patterns to generate novel outputs.
> There's also the question of whether the model itself is a redistribution. For every other lossy compression algorithm in history, the answer is a resounding yes. Is a model meaningfully different from a hypercompressed corpus of its learning data?
The model isn't a lossy compression archive that merely represents a collection of pre-existing works in parallel to each other. It's a probability matrix that relates together uniquely isolatable units of data to each other across the entire collection.
If I build a Markov chain based on a statistical analysis of word sequences in Hamlet, and then use it to produce a new sentence that isn't found in the text of that work, I have not created a derivative work of Hamlet under any applicable sense of that term.
> The social contract of the open source (not to be confused with the legal contract of GPL, MIT etc.) is that developers give users software that they can use and modify in any way they want, and in exchange the users give the developer recognition and help with development and maintance, as well as give each other the assurance that the software will remain available to them and any future users.
I don't think that is generally true. There's always been a hope and expectation that some subset of users would contribute back to the project in the ways you're describing, but never a sense of there being any obligation to do so. Only a fraction of FOSS users have ever contributed to back to the projects whose software they use.
There's always been both a social and legal obligation to properly attribute authors and abide by license terms when redistributing or forking FOSS code, but neither obligation has ever applied when learning programming techniques from FOSS code in order to write your own software. And the way LLMs are designed to work is more similar to the latter than to the former.
But in cases where LLMs actually are acting in ways similar to the former, I agree that they should be held accountable both socially and legally.
>If I build a Markov chain based on a statistical analysis of word sequences in Hamlet, and then use it to produce a new sentence that isn't found in the text of that work, I have not created a derivative work of Hamlet under any applicable sense of that term.
If you write "To see or not to see, that is the question" about a person named Eyelet, who is going blind, how can you argue that it is NOT derivative of / borrowed from Hamlet? Yet that sentence is not in the work. Isn't that what LLMs essentially do? Tokenize, then substitute in new values for certain tokens, while retaining the general structure?
> If I build a Markov chain based on a statistical analysis of word sequences in Hamlet, and then use it to produce a new sentence that isn't found in the text of that work, I have not created a derivative work of Hamlet under any applicable sense of that term.
Uh, that is exactly what a derivative work is. You literally specify that Hamlet is an input to your work. I believe you're conflating derivative with transformative. You're certainly creating a transformative derivation of Hamlet, but you are by definition creating a derivative work by training a Markov chain on the text of Hamlet.
The obvious follow up here is whether an LLM is creating transformative derivations or not. A lot of folks argue that yes, an LLM spitting out statistically sampled code that matches existing code is not transformative and is (or might be) infringing the terms of the license it was released under. Others argue that there's not an exact copy of the original source in the LLM's weights so by definition it must be a transformative work. I think it's a pretty obvious "somewhere in the middle" that is gonna make a bunch of lawyers a whole lot of money.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I'm one of the folks that thinks software shouldn't be copyright-able in the first place.
No, it isn't. A derivative work isn't something based on extracting underlying ideas or patterns from another work, it's something that includes copyrighted portions of the other work.
An annotated edition of Hamlet is a derivative work. A Cliff's Notes summary of Hamlet is a derivative work.
Strange Brew and The Lion King are not derivative works of Hamlet simply because they include literary themes and plot points that originated in Hamlet. A list of word counts of popular works of literature that includes an entry for Hamlet is also not a derivative work. The Markov chain described above is not a derivative work.
> The obvious follow up here is whether an LLM is creating transformative derivations or not. A lot of folks argue that yes, an LLM spitting out statistically sampled code that matches existing code is not transformative and is (or might be) infringing the terms of the license it was released under.
And I would agree with them. An LLM that actually is outputting non-trivial code that matches a public project's code verbatim is engaging in copying, and not stochastic inference.
> I think it's a pretty obvious "somewhere in the middle" that is gonna make a bunch of lawyers a whole lot of money.
It's a shame that the same fundamental questions have to be relitigated over and over again just because the contextual formalities and modes of expression have changed. I wonder how many of the legal cases are going to be copies or derivative works of previous ones.
People who take steps in response to social contract being broken are the ones responsible for the steps they've taken, not the ones who break the social contract.
> Hard to imagine at least one person didn’t see the device name and immediately brush it off as entirely unimportant.
There are hundreds of BT devices everywhere that people waiting for a flight hang out. Without automatic scanning for the specific purpose of catching weird names, it'd be near impossible for the weird name to ever show up for anyone except the owner. And most devices don't advertise their BT name unless in pairing mode, so no, it wouldn't show up in the security screening either.
So, how did it eventually show up?
Owner's phone goes off/airplane-mode, watch starts advertising; someone else wants to connect their BT headphones and sees the name of the watch?
I suspect it went something like this. "Please turn on the airplane mode now." Phone put into airplane mode. Phone disables BT. Watch loses connection. Because of questionable engineering choices, it automatically enters pairing mode and looks for another known device while also broadcasting its name. Most BT and WiFi devices in the area are turned off so the list of broadcasting devices is very short. The plane crew (I assume) manually check for strong 2.4G signals as part of take off procedures. "The Bomb" is sticking out like a sore thumb among the 5-10 other Fitbits and JBLs.
Importantly, the set of circumstances is so specific it couldn't have happened anywhere that is not an inside of an airplane about to take off - but also it would've happened inside every airplane about to take off.
There are way fewer Bluetooth signals active at once on an airplane then there are in an airport. There is also the entire duration of the flight for it to be discovered. Also take in to account that most people are not fidgeting with their device settings when they are walking around an airport, they are trying to get through security and get to their gate. Once you are on a plane that’s when you usually stop and start setting up your devices, such as connecting headphones.
As counterintuitive as it sounds, it turns out video game consumers don't care much about the actual computation either. Most games are riddled with bugs, and it has next to no impact on sales. Rather, having weird, even embarrassing bugs can make players look at the game more fondly. Skyrim is one of the best selling games ever. Ostensibly it's about fighting dragons. But "Skyrim moment" does not mean an epic battle with a dragon. It means said dragon flying through a goddamn castle, then getting stuck on a single tree and disappearing into the ground, and still hitting you with fire breath somehow.
Buggy games have destroyed franchises. Gothic 3 being a prime example. Contrary to the memes skyrim is not even close to the worst offenders in terms of bugs. Besides bad code does not only lead to bugs. It can lead to bad gameplay, bad performance, missing features, slipped deadlines. A things users care a lot about.
Gothic has always been a niche franchise, and G3 was poorly received not because of bugs, but because of bad worldbuilding (orcs speaking human language, magic runes disappearing, a powerful kingdom getting wholly conquered in basically no time, pretty small open world) and uninteresting story compared to previous titles. Sure it did have bugs, but so did G1 and G2. And that one AssCreed game where people's heads disappeared leaving just eyeballs behind, which still sold crazy numbers. Or the famously bad Cyberpunk 2077 launch, where bad means millions of copies sold in first 2 weeks, not even counting preorders. Or countless other examples.
Most players care about performance even less than they care about bugs. Basically every AAA game nowadays is criticized for piss poor performance and not having the looks to justify it. They're still massive successes.
Usually, it's good code that leads to missed deadlines, not bad code. It literally takes more time and effort to write good code. Gamedev lives on 3-year cycle, that's not enough time for code debt to start causing problems.
Bad gameplay... yes, that can be actual problem. But it's rarely due to a single bad line of code, or even ten thousand bad lines of code. In most games, gameplay is bad because it was designed to be bad. As in, they had a certain way of playing in mind, and they made the game exactly how they wanted, it's just most players don't find that way of playing fun. No amount of code quality can fix that.
> Gothic has always been a niche franchise, and G3 was poorly received not because of bugs, but because of bad worldbuilding (orcs speaking human language, magic runes disappearing, a powerful kingdom getting wholly conquered in basically no time, pretty small open world) and uninteresting story compared to previous titles.
This is just not true. Gothic 3 is still pretty alive in terms of modding and improvement precisely because the base underneath the bugginess was good. You don't have a good community after 20 years if you have bad bodybuilding and uninteresting story.
> Most players care about performance even less than they care about bugs. Basically every AAA game nowadays is criticized for piss poor performance and not having the looks to justify it. They're still massive successes.
You equal success meaning that players don't get care about bad things in a game. That's just a way to reductive view. You can literally read everywhere how people complain about the bad performance of games. Performance is a standard staple in game reviews.
> Usually, it's good code that leads to missed deadlines, not bad code. It literally takes more time and effort to write good code. Gamedev lives on 3-year cycle, that's not enough time for code debt to start causing problems.
Nice trying to put words in my mouth. This is about good and bad developers. Good developers write better code in the same or less time it would take bad developers. that's literally why they are good developers. Bad developers compound on bad code making progress exponentially slower compared to if you had good developers from the start. The question was never the same developer writing good vs bad code.
> Bad gameplay... yes, that can be actual problem. But it's rarely due to a single bad line of code, or even ten thousand bad lines of code. In most games, gameplay is bad because it was designed to be bad. As in, they had a certain way of playing in mind, and they made the game exactly how they wanted, it's just most players don't find that way of playing fun. No amount of code quality can fix that.
I think you really underestimate how much a gameplay programmer can influence the gameplay. Not every millisecond of latency is specified in game design docs. Most of gameplay is designed by feeling. If your developer is not capable of producing good gameplay your game designers can do nothing.
> This is just not true. Gothic 3 is still pretty alive in terms of modding and improvement precisely because the base underneath the bugginess was good. You don't have a good community after 20 years if you have bad bodybuilding and uninteresting story.
You do realize that Bethesda's excuses for worldbuilding are some of the most modded turds out there, right?
> Gothic 3 is still pretty alive in terms of modding
A fraction of G2's modding scene. And the reason is even after all the bugfixes and community patches, people still overwhelmingly prefer G2 over G3.
> You equal success meaning that players don't get care about bad things in a game. That's just a way to reductive view.
I equal success to financial success, because we're talking why game programmers are paid less, and the reason is (partly) because code quality has next to no impact on sales. If people still buy your hame despite the bad things about it, then it's a financial success, and game studios exploit this fact to the extreme.
> Nice trying to put words in my mouth. This is about good and bad developers.
I was replying to this part: "Besides bad code does not only lead to bugs. It can lead to bad gameplay, bad performance, missing features, slipped deadlines." My intention was that no, generally it's not true that bad code leads to missed deadlines. Slow coding, yes. Bad coding, no. Good programmers are valuable to game studios not because they can write good code, but because they write bad code faster. Which is reflected in lower salaries compared to other software products where writing good code actually matters and where salaries are higher.
> Not every millisecond of latency is specified in game design docs. Most of gameplay is designed by feeling.
Not every millisecond matters for the feeling (unless you're making a fighting game but that's why I said rarely, not never). Usually performance issues in gameplay can be masked by increasing timing windows or by the eternal excuse of git gud (usually, not always). In general, the gameplay of the vast majority of games is simple enough that with modern tools, any half decent programmer can implement any feeling the designer aims for, with varying amounts of noticable issues. Sure, there are exceptions, but exceptions don't shape salary trends.
I'd say it's missing the FI part and the RE part of the FIRE strategy. Even if they did retire early with financial independence, it's never been their goal and they never actively worked toward it. The reason regular saving and regular humble living look a lot like FIRE saving and FIRE humble living is that an average person can only do so much to increase their net worth, so the possible variance between any two people is very limited.
But not actively. At best, they passively worked toward it. They never consciously took any steps to ensure they have FI or can ever RE. It just happened to them while they were working on other goals.
I had extremely bad experience trying to setup act on my Macbook. If this is something that actually works (and doesn't steal my credentials), I'm willing to try it despite AI non-features.
Yea, I've had only barely-success on only a few projects with act. Usually due to steps/scripts that use github-internal APIs, but afaict far from always.
I like that it exists, but what a freaking mess that it's necessary and so difficult to do.
As to continue my anecdotal story, I could safely say that all of my interactions with computers up until the age of 14 were purely gaming with occasional drawing in ms paint. Even so, at the age of 14, I did manage to create a simple html web page, and install a php based web engine, those actions were barely conscious, just following some tutorials in my mother tongue. Only at the age of 17 I made some first real steps into using computer to compute, write first simple programs, and began to be able to understand how it actually works. I'm pretty sure, that all of the time I spent with computers before 14 contributed less than 0.1% into "getting into STEM" and that learning English, reading actual books, spending time in extracurricular classes did way, way more. But then again, that's just my personal experience. Though I believe, it's of many.
You are not giving your 14 year old self the credit they deserve. Creating simple HTML webpages is beyond capabilities of most adults even when following tutorials. I personally witnessed many 14 year olds who failed at literally that. In school setting. Where they had a human teacher they could ask for help with anything, so much better than just a tutorial. Without PHP, just static HTML files saved on desktop.
Years of gaming let you internalize a huge number of UX idioms that you rely on everyday, like left and right mouse clicks, hierarchical menus, hotkeys, text input, active and inactive UI elements, navigating documents larger than the viewport (drag/scroll wheel/scroll bars), and so on and so forth. Imagine how much harder it would be for your 14 year old self to install and run XAMPP or whatever if they knew none of these things. Imagine how much harder it would be for your 17 year old self to begin their programming journey if they didn't already know what a file is.
Looking back from the end of the road, those 0.1% might look tiny and insignificant. But there's a high chance you'd never go into programming at all if you didn't play video games as a child. Not because of the games themselves, but because they gave you early exposure to computers. If all you did was browse Facebook instead, the effect would be much the same.
I heard that the biggest struggle current CS professors have with college freshmen is teaching them about files and directories. It takes a full year before it clicks for most people.
This was true but accidental when "we" were growing up, because if I wanted to play a game on the family computer, I had to figure out the right drivers and suchwith to make it work.
"Acquainted with computers" is closer to endlessly strolling tiktoc now.
Even doomscrolling gives you dozens of skills that never get talked about because they're just so obvious to anyone with those skills - but someone who's not even doomscrolling would literally not have, and it would bite them big time in office setting. Things like navigating touch menus, recognizing interactive and non-interactive UI elements, telling apart user-submitted content from ads, likely how to type, likely how to use multiple apps, likely how to send links and attachments to other people, likely what an account is and why remembering passwords is important.
I used to work in a phone store where almost all customers were 50+. Explaining how to call a saved contact was a daily occurence to us, nevermind creating new contacts. While I do understand why this happens and have nothing but sympathy for these people, I wouldn't want my daughter to be like that at 18.
Speaking of WebAccessibilityFails, the article overflows to the left without a scrollbar when viewed on a phone narrower than an iPhone, making the first word of every line unreadable (and there are a lot of lines on a phone narrower than an iPhone).
I keep my browser zoomed in substantially to compensate for uncorrectable vision issues. I’d say perhaps once per day I’ll encounter a website that has never had zoom in/out (ctl +/-) tested because if you zoom up even one level from 100%, everything breaks.
There are several equally useless failure modes I’ve seen with this, a few off the top of my head:
- rendering fails, everything falls apart
- some elements disappear
- it drops into the feature-limited mobile view
- the author or framework overrides zoom with some other behavior — this one makes me especially crazy because they had to do *extra work* to screw up accessibility
Certain websites are impossible for me to use and I just avoid them.
I remember seeing a website that had <html style="font-size: XXX%"> for the top-level element, and had JS that would dynamically recalculate that percentage on every resize event to keep the visual font size almost (exactly) constant. Made me think for a moment that my mouse wheel broke.
One of my pet peeves in the modern web is when someone displays an image and scales it to exactly the size of your screen, but I want to look more closely at a part of the image so I do a scrollwheel zoom, only for the image to actually shrink as every UI element except the thing I want gets bigger. And then you go "ok, right click on the image and do the "Open Image in new tab" thing and somehow the site defeats that and puts all of their UI crap in the new tab as well.
I figure there must be an extension to handle these problems, I googled and the AI gave me a bunch of helpful answers, which all happened to be Chrome extensions despite me using FF. hmmm. It did also say it could help me find FF extensions if I really wanted them, but there seems to be some shenanigans going on here.
Anyway, an extension should solve it.
A propos image tricks sites pull, I've noticed before the right click for images don't work at all in Instagram web, I wonder how they do that, probably background on a div.
In my experience, the reader mode works perfectly fine for sites like that (it worked for that one site I mentioned in my original comment as well) both in Chrome and Firefox.
i think firefox shows the "open image in new tab" for backgrounds also, now. at least sometimes. still easily defeated by putting an invisible div above it so no right clicks reach it... or do some js bullshit to disable right clicks...
The modern version is to use @media to achieve the same annoying effect without js. Fortunately, there's a finite number of rules so I've found that if you zoom far enough the text does actually start getting larger. Though I expect that someone's already figured out how to use CSS Math to keep text tiny at all zoom levels.
Six years is getting long in the tooth. Isn't it about time to upend everything once again and invent another cascading wheel that trades old, familiar edge cases for new, unfamiliar edge cases?
clamp is superior to @media because it solves a common problem with @media, although I am more apt to consider that problem in relation to proportions of divs and margins given the needs of responsiveness.
Indeed I'm not sure what edge case I might expect to find given the ability of using clamp in conjunction with @media.
> I’d say perhaps once per day I’ll encounter a website that has never had zoom in/out (ctl +/-) tested because if you zoom up even one level from 100%, everything breaks
How does it break for you? Seems OK to me on android — in fact, I already had it at 110%. Reminded me to check my desktop settings which have HN fixed at 125%. I cannot believe that, in 2026, the default font size is set at 12px — is anyone actually reading it at that size?!
> I cannot believe that, in 2026, the default font size is set at 12px — is anyone actually reading it at that size?!
The very first "quality of life" thing I do when I install a new computer / operating system nowadays is double (sometimes triple) the default font size. 12pt was probably fine when our monitors were 640x480, and when we were 18 years old.
I leave HN on default everything, but I have a 1080p monitor so it might look bigger for me than someone with a higher resolution monitor... I don't know how that works. But I often have to zoom out of websites linked here because the text is so big and it feels uncomfortable to read
Yeah, 12px is fine (27" 1440p, no display scaling). It is on the small side. I'd go a bit larger for something I made. But it's not a small enough to slow down my reading.
I use DuckDuckGo Browser, Firefox, and Chrome on Android pretty much in that order of preference. In both mobile mode and desktop mode all of these browsers support pinch zoom and two-finger drag scrolling. I have no problems with this site using those.
I think we might need a little more information than just the OS to differentiate.
This is caused by using CSS grid with "minmax(auto, 57rem)" and an overflowing table. It can be fixed with adding "safe" to "justify-content: safe center" that is defined on main.
Funny how the problem itself is created by CSS, and the solution is "more CSS." On the other hand, bare HTML tends to be extremely accessible and lacks these kinds of basic problems with panning, zooming, and scrolling.
CSS is this weird thing where it has dominance as a layout engine because it is so battle tested compared to a lot of other layout engines, but was clearly designed by a committee that could give a rat’s ass about how ergonomic it is to use.
It took until 2023 to support nesting, something that was so obvious that preprocessors have had it since at least 2006.
The most infuriating case I've seen within the last few days is the Airbnb CAPTCHA, which relies on the user being able to see content that is blocked at zoom levels over 100%. They have an alternative audio option that they've clearly never tested; it always reports failure, even if the CAPTCHA was solved correctly. Unthinkable for an organization with their resources.
reply