How people interact with LEGO varies. Some people like to buy specific sets and make them. That's fine. Some people see a random pile of bricks and build a massive city [1]. There are also competition events for what people can build from a random pile of bricks. There was a TV show about this too (ie Lego Masters).
Some games are problem solving, others are competitive, yet others are elimination but an awful lot of games have a component that requires you to inject imagination. The Sims and even Minecraft (despite it having a survival mode too) spring to mind.
That's what NMS is. Some people like to find the perfect looking ship. Others build bases to look a certain way. Others just explore. Yet others make money.
If that's not for you, that's OK. But NMS can't be dismissed as being repetitive or boring.
I don't know why we even have this event anymore. There's a new iPhone every September. It's incrementally better than the last iPhone. Phones keep getting more expensive while doing basically the same thing for some reason. Just buy whatever is out when you need a new phone.
I bought an iPhone 11 in 2019 I think? It last until 2 years ago when I limped along until the iPhone 16 Plus. I like the big screen area. The premium for Pro isn't worth it to me. I hope to get another 3 years out of it.
What I would like is an iPhone with Touch ID as an option and no, I don't mean the small one (SE?). I want a big screen. Put the Touch ID on the back of the phone like the samsung Galaxy did.
I literally hate Face ID with a passion and it's a massive accessibility issue for people with visual impairments.
No amount of slightly better CPU and camera is going to get me to upgrade every year anymore.
If you have to hold your phone closer to your face because of poor eyesight, Face ID will constantly fail. So you have this dance of having to pull it away to get Face ID to pass when required. Touch ID just works.
Despite post facto conspiracy theories that it was a guerilla marketing campaign to promote "Old Coke", it was not. Coca-Cola tested a new formula in focus groups and people preferred it at the time because, basically, it was sweeter. But this didn't translate into longer term consumption. It's a cautionary tale in how data science can fail and how you shouldn't necessarily extrapolate to the long-term from the short-term.
So when people say they preferred AI written stories, what are they really reacting to? There's probably a lot of elements that are engaging but is it a lasting story? Most enduring stories become so because they speak to some truth of the current times or the human condition that can be hard to separate from the technical merits of the story.
Example #1: Fight Club both as a book and a movie was a bit of a sleeper hit. It was a box office failure. But it became a cult classic because it was one of the earlier works that spoke to the loss of a future for men in our society.
Example #2: The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Again, it was a sleeper hit but it built over time as a relatively early Western expression of queer culture, gender identity and cultural conformance.
Example #3: The Wire. While it had great writing it has endured as a testament to institutional failure at every level and that doesn't necessarily take a villain. Everybody can be acting in their own interests and you end up with inevitable failure anyway.
Example #4: The Great Gatsby. This was never a hit in F. Scott Fizgerald's lifetime. How it became one is an interesting story. Basically, during WW2 the Army created these small print books for deployed soldiers to easily carry and read. Then once the war ended and many of the veterans went to college, they wrote about the Great Gatasby. It's now viewed as an American masterpiece that captures the 1920s like few other works. It expresses class consciousness and some of the metaphors (like the green light on the dock) are debated to this day.
Now, could AI write things that coherently speak to the human condition this way? Not yet (IMHO). Far from it.
That being said, there are only so many base story structures. Take the romance category. You'll find repeated tropes. Could AI write what might best be called "pulp fiction" in that genre? Probably sooner rather than later.
Google is playing a dangerous game here and I think it's going to bite them in the butt. First, some history.
One thing that made Microsoft successful was a strategy called embrace, extend and extinguish ("EEE"). This is what they tried to do to Java back when it was believed that Java was a threat to Microsoft's platform monopoly since the Java mantra was "write once, run anywhere". Microsoft added all these proprietary extensions after licensing Java.
Well, Microsoft basically did the same thing to knock Netscape off its throne. It was the whole basis for the antitrust suit. This was aimed at Java too because Java introduced applets. MS added ActiveX controls. MS did succeed at killing Netscape but the antitrust suit (and probably the victory over Java and Netscape) led us to more than a decade of hell with IE6 compatibility as MS basically abandoned their browser.
Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it. And when it was first released, it was magical. They pioneered one process per tab. At the time, Netscape had faded into Fireforx and it was pretty bad. Your entire browser could hang since it was one thread per tab and it absolutely did hang.
At this time and really through the mid-2010s, Google was a good actor with Chrome (IMHO). Chrome was secure, stable and a pretty open platform. Unfortunately for Google, this became a problem as use of ad blockers became more widespread. Where Chrome once became a posterchild for standards support, other parts of Google weren't so... open. Youtube at this time started playing games when people were using non-Chrome browsers.
Anyone who uses Chrome knows that the anti-ad blocking really stepped up. Changes to what extensions are allowed to do killed uBlock Origin. Google has risked regulatory wrath by special-casing their own user-tracking and ad cookies while blocking other third-party cookies. They also tried to phase out third-party cookies in favor of what sounded like a first-party only tracking (FLoC? I think it was called?).
Another issue is that Google always wanted people to be logged in with search and for the longest time they weren't. Well, people basically opted in to this by using Chrome and using a Google account. I used to really like the Google account syncing with Chrome. A lot of that for me has been replaced by using a password manager.
My point is I once was a huge Chrome fan and now I really want there to be an alternative. I trust Apple with Safari/iOS more than Google with Chrome/Android at this point. YMMV. I find myself using Firefox a lot (again).
Anyway, this whole messing with user tracking and ads I think could be Chrome's downfall and might invite regulatory scrutiny.
> Google did something in the mid-2000s that nobody thought was possible: they created a browser and got mass adoption without having a platform. People willingly downloaded it
I have to say that things weren't so bright. You were correct that Google had no platform, but Google never had any qualms about doing illegal things. To start with, the average person had no idea what a browser is, they had 'the internet' installed on their computer. Someday 'the internet' had changed on their computer.
How? Well, remember that Windows had (or: has) no equivalent of Linux software repositories. People browsed the internet and downloaded software (including malware) from big download sites. Google sponsored those sites and had google chrome injected in every installer. Think about that when Google talks about 'sideloading Android apps'. People just had no idea, but all of a sudden their internet had changed.
Secondly, Google hijacked other browsers by urging people on the Google homepage to install Google Toolbar (if I remember the name correctly) This provided a different way to spy on user's browsing activity, plus it provided a springboard toward a full chrome install.
Thirdly, Google pushed users aggressively to download Chrome across all of their products. I remember Google telling me on every page that my browser was not Chrome.
Chrome was never an offer from a benevolent party, on the contrary. I have been talking against many a deaf ear that it isn't that smart to install an ad viewer from an ad company, even if the first page load feels more flashy in Chrome. I am glad that people finally are starting to wise up, better late than never. Especially the stupid excuses I heard from tech people that insisted Chrome is the only way has learnt me that tech people aren't as smart as we think they are. Don't take that personally.
We now have to free the internet for the average Joe. That won't be easy if we can't evade consequences from crime as Google can.
> Google has risked regulatory wrath by special-casing their own user-tracking and ad cookies while blocking other third-party cookies.
Google is too big a company to let something this essential slip through. Therefore the only reasonable position is to assume it's intentional, unless somehow proven that it was just incompetence.
If intentional, that would count as a repeat offense. I hope EU regulators throw a crack team of coders/researchers at this, disassemble every last bit of binaries involved, check history of changes, turn Google offices upside down for relevant internal docs/memo's etc. The works.
Then -unless proven to be an honest mistake- fire up another anti-trust case. But this time tripling or x5 the fine.
A company of Google's size & influence, pulling this kind of shenanigans repeatedly, should either be forced out of business or become unprofitable. Oh and have the responsible leaders up top (CEO?) serve actual jail time.
Microsoft did attempt the EEE strategy against Java with Visual J++, but Sun slapped that attempt down and Visual J++ was always a pretty minor footnote. The end result of this effort was C#. I should note that the much more successful EEE strategy against Java was Google's Android.
MS was successful at killing Netscape largely because paid software is difficult to compete against free software. The ActiveX controls weren't a feature with a lot of use--I can probably count all the sites I usedwith ActiveX controls on one hand. More common were the four big plugins: Java (for applets), Flash (counting Shockwave as part of Flash), Adobe Acrobot Reader, and Silverlight.
Netscape famously rewrote its codebase to try to implement the new web standards (like CSS2) more quickly, which contributed greatly to its ultimate collapse. After Netscape collapsed, MS laid off most of its browser development team, which let IE6 languish for years without improvements, going from the most standards-compliant browser on the market to the least standards-compliant. The rise of Firefox caused MS to pay attention again to web browsers, eventually restarting development and leading to IE7 being finally released. Only subsequent to that (and Firefox taking a large chunk of the browser market) did Google Chrome come out.
In many countries around the world, corruption is a huge problem. But pretty much everywhere it happens there's a surface-level denial or attempt to hide it. If you're Putin or Erdogan, for example, you'll have children who get beneficial contracts and there's layers of obfuscation.
So there are three things that are scary about Trump's corruption:
1. It's so brazen and on a scale rarely seen. Apparently he's made $2 billion since coming back into office and he does so openly. Pardons are for sale. Truth Social has a feature to pay to get early access to posts to trade on, basically. There are crypto rug pulls. The list goes on;
2. A third of the population simply doesn't care and will defend it no matter what; and
3. He'll never be held accountable by any future administration. This is the worst part. If this happened in China, he'd go to prison and his assets would be seized. This would extend to his family and their assets. Just look at Hui Ya Kan [1].
The US just does not punish the wealthy. Look at the Sacklers and Purdue. There's clear evidence they hid the fact that Oxycontin was addictive despite their public claims and they have a large amount of responsibility for the opioid crisis. In a just world, they would all die penniless in 6x8 foot grey prison cells. And who went to prison for the 2008 subprime crisis? Oh, that's right. Nobody.
This also extends to the powerful. George W. Bush had an illegal torture program. Who went to prison for it? Only 1 guy: the whistleblower John Kiriakou for talking about it.
The Supreme Court is utterly corrupt. Anthony Kennedy allegedly traded his retirement for a job for his son. John Roberts's wife makes tens of millions in headhunting fees for finding lawyers to argue before teh Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas is just one bribe after another.
The entire government is captured by people who want to get rich by betraying their country to the ultra-wealthy.
1. Lawmakers literally do not care what you think (study from Princeton) [1];
2. Private utilities are more expensive than public utilities [2]; and
3. Nobody goes to war over a solar panel [3].
All of this is relevant here.
The privatization of utilities has shown to be a massive mistake, in part based on debunked economics (ie the tragedy of the commons). Demand is very inelastic so they have to be highly regulated. The electricity price is set by lawmakers so how do they make profits? By building more infrastructure because that cost can be passed on to consumers.
So if a hyperscalar needs 6GW of power, you need to build massive transmission lines and power plants. That's great for private utility profits. And that's what we're all paying for. The DCs are usually getting subsidized electricity as well as not paying for the extra infrastructure.
So many things would be better if we'd had mass adoption of renewable power but that's bad for the wealthy. You install a solar panel and it just generates electricity every year. It can be built incrementally and quickly. It also tends to utilize land that is of little value otherwise, such as in the Southwest US. But fossil fuels make people wealthy. An oil or natural gas well declines in production over time. That means you have to keep building them. That's more profit.
This whole saga is revealing to a lot of people just how little lawmakers care about the voters. They'll ignore protests and vote anyway. They'll do it in secret. If they get voted out, who cares? They'll magically find their way into jobs for these companies.
Reading other comments, it seems like people don't know that Gloria Steinem was a complicated figure, specifically her involvement with the CIA for at least 4 years is documented [1].
By all accounts, this was in the wake of the Red Scare and she was reporting on Communist activities by European student groups. At the same time she supported unionization efforts and fair pay for women. This is what I mean by complicated.
But more problematic was this statement [2]:
> While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying: “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.”
Anyone who knows the history of the CIA knows it was completely off the rails in the 1950s and directly involved in if not responsible for many coups. Regime change by the US is so common there's a whole Wikipedia page about it [3].
Likewise, Steinem was anti-sex work, calling it "commercial rape" [4]. That's not really surprising for the time and you can't necessarily use the same norms from 2026 in the 1950s to 1980s.
You can appreciate her contributions to, for example, equal pay and advancement of feminism and what became known as women's liberation while acknowledging her complexities. I don't understand this need people have to rewrite history to be black and white and either deify or villify people when they die.
Tech in general (including HN) skews right wing. The era of the countercultural social rebel is long over. Now it's largely just people who have the bag defending the status quo and a whole bunch more people who think they'll one day be holding the bag so are defending the status quo. Tech companies are now fundamentally just defense contractors.
There are an awful lot of people who don't hate opression. They simply hate being oppressed. And those are two very different things.
This claim probably upsets a bunch of people who don't want to think of themselves as right wing. They'll point to rainbow flags in their bios at the same time they're the most NIMBY people in the Bay Area and they basically want homeless people to just die.
This is perhaps one of the more disappointing aspects of the collapse of the 'old internet' and its replacement with the venture capital backed enshittification engine that it is now. Tech people used to be mostly people who were curious about things. That might not be a selector for 'good' person but it's at least a selector against the kind of brutally effective banal corporate evil that so dominates the space today.
> ICE Deports Milo Yiannopoulos, to settle some intra-MAGA feud
This is probably the one valid thing they did. He's truly vile [1]. He's also illustrative of how most undocumented people aren't "sneaking across the border" as the media claims but are simply visa overstayers. Still, Laura Loomer shouldn't have the power to advance his deportation. The story goes that he was in removal proceedings and he didn't show up for his hearing before an immigration judge so was ordered deported in absentia and then ICE picked him up.
Milo Yiannopoulos is just not a hill I'm ever willing to die on.
> Still, Laura Loomer shouldn't have the power to advance his deportation.
This is a really key point. Trump operates like a mafia boss. Being in the protected class is a privilege that is fully dependent on the perception of the boss and those close to him. "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law."
It's not a good way to run a country. Did we have perfectly applied rule of law before the Trump era? No, but Trump is bringing us to new extremes of legal inequality.
The real terrifying aspect of this whole story has nothing to do with Milo Vs ICE.
It's the fact that these previously cartoonish figures on Twitter are now wielding some level of power.
People love to say "oh just get off those bad social medias", but that fails to recognize how there is now multiple social media sites exercising a high level of coercion and misinformation that is injecting the previously goofy "it's just online" into real life.
The white nationalism that has been boosted by Elon and co IS REAL. It will have lasting effects on every facet of our society. The people who used to be internet clowns are now deporting their enemies.
I can't emphasize this enough, this is BAD.
There is no one with any level of morals or ethics at the wheel. It makes too much money to tear apart society. You can bring up endless cliches, "mainstream media", "billionaires", "politics". But the fact is, news channels have spent endless hours covering Hassan(the twitch streamer) and avoiding actual news. Nearly every facet of society has been captured to manipulate us, and there is no good ending for any of this.
There's a far deeper and longer standing issue here and that's rent-seeking.
We know what works in education. It's phonics and direct insturction, basically. But nobody gets rich that way so you end up buying into a worse system through two steps:
1. Education PhDs need to justify their existence. They do by reineventing what works. This is basically how we came up with sight words to replace phonics, which is largely responsible for destroying literacy. Whoever comes up with these schemes gets to get academic cachet for being a thought leader. They get invited to all the cool conferences and parties; and
2. Rent-seeking edtech companies end up creating solutions for things that aren't really problems. This long predated AI. It suffers from all the normal issues of corruption in government procurement. Politicians and superintendents are enticed ("bribed") to buy solutions that teachers are then mandated to use, forcing students onto devices to work a program with dubious results.
You see this pattern play out in a ton of government R&D. For example, SMR reactors in nuclear power. There's no world that SMR makes sense. Nuclear plants benefit from scale. But behind all this you'll find a bunch of physics academics who pushed this idea to get status, some of whom then get hired by SMR startups and others get involved in government procurement. Everybody is grfiting.
So while I welcome schools not using AI early on, that's barelly scratching the surface. And that begins with teaching literacy and holding students back until they can read sufficiently for their grade level.
> But nobody gets rich that way so you end up buying into a worse system
software development is like this too; you can do fine without all the fancy ceremonies and tools as long as you get the basics right, but rent-seeking and consultants run rampant to everyones detriment
Some games are problem solving, others are competitive, yet others are elimination but an awful lot of games have a component that requires you to inject imagination. The Sims and even Minecraft (despite it having a survival mode too) spring to mind.
That's what NMS is. Some people like to find the perfect looking ship. Others build bases to look a certain way. Others just explore. Yet others make money.
If that's not for you, that's OK. But NMS can't be dismissed as being repetitive or boring.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfVCmkexl2E
reply