Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | g-b-r's commentslogin

Places where you have to use your real name, like Facebook, are typically more toxic

I find the opposite. Anonymity provides a protection from shame that real names don't.

hmm. Facebook is a GD cesspool but 4chan?? Anonymity drives that toxicity!

Not sure why you link to a screenshot of LinkedIn, or to LinkedIn at all, but you might want to spell-check what's written there

If that would really be the only option, don't make the app.

If it gets very popular, those who don't want to be tied to Google will be excluded from something important.

And the maker of this app thinks it could have a tremendous impact, so...


I'm pretty sure I've seen ads and articles along those lines in the '80s

Except that right now almost everyone hates AI-generated entertainment products (slop), with a passion

Wow, this seems so good !!!

Despite those billions of people not ending up electing Trump?

uhm, 13 people upvoted the single comment of this newly created account

How do you know how many people upvoted it?

User has one comment and their karma is listed as "14" in their profile.

HN is recently absolutely chock full of brand new accounts agreeing with and upvoting each other. The "new" section is repo after repo created a handful minutes ago with AI slop.

I imagine this is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.


> brand new accounts agreeing with and upvoting each other

Most political threads on HN are the same way, despite HN not being /r/politics...


God, that's how today's kids see drm-free software?

As something hard to wrap your mind around?


As I had already finished a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46405900 when I found out it had died, here it is:

FACT: There's a lot that the United States can do to make the situation much worse or better.

FACT: However bad the current situation is, continuing the emissions will keep worsening it.

FACT: Digging in on dying technologies supports the prosperity of our less idiotic adversaries.

FACT: You will be downvoted to oblivion by people who are more aware of what the actual facts are.


Please don't reply to a guidelines-breaking comment with another one. Ideological battle is against the guidelines here whether you initiate it or perpetuate it.


“Digging in on dying technologies” is an interesting framing.

There is no appetite for oil alternatives that would stop this from meaning the deaths of hundreds of thousands or more people.

The fact is there is no effective way to power a stable grid with modern renewables. Increasing the energy mix sustainably is great. But if people truly want to divest from oil and coal there number one issue right now should be how to onboard nuclear energy effectively. This has been true for decades at this point, but purist policies on the right and the left have left it completely unrealized or actively dismantled it.


Solar and batteries get cheaper to build and maintain every year (almost to an absurd degree, seriously, look at the charts for the past 2 decades), while nuclear stays the same price.

That's not to say that nuclear power is bad to have, but there's an extremely obvious trajectory here of cheap battery-backed solar everywhere, with few regulatory hurdles and obvious incentives for people to have their own mini solar systems and batteries that take load off the larger grid.


Are coal and oil not dying technologies?

We can debate how much nuclear is needed, but renewables can do a lot, and just hoping that AI will bring nuclear fusion in 5 years is not a great strategy


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

Search: