Mobile app is pretty good, my biggest complaint is it won't sync in the background. It only syncs when you open it up. But it's well designed and fully functional.
Real time chat? Great. But entire communities, forums, and wikis moving behind the locked walled of Discord has been a disaster for information discovery.
Don't replace Discord with a similar alternative. Return to open forums and wikis!
The problem is forum UX on mobile is mediocre, and people have to create an account for each forum. Most people are using mobile devices now, like it or not, so convenience of rich text chat wins out.
But that's the effect. Either Discord gets to lock the information away (even if it currently chooses to leave the gate unlocked), or it's available to anyone who does a web search.
I would have agreed 5 years ago, but not this day and age, when AI is raping open source projects and killing platforms like Stack Overflow.
We need a safe space from web crawlers and surveillance, and open forums ain't it. (Neither is Discord, but a sufficiently secure alternative might be.)
I haven't heard that word used as a metaphor or hyperbole since I stopped playing on call of duty in 2014...
Weird that the hacker news community wants to stick to it. Yall need to grow up. Because I know you would not use it as a metaphor or hyperbole at work.
Actual reason: there's far more training data available for electron apps than native apps.
And despite what Anthropic and OpenAI want you to think, these LLMs are not AGI. They cannot invent something new. They are only as good as the training data.
Per GitHub's TOS, you must be 13 years old to use the service. Since this agent is only two weeks old, it must close the account as it's in violation of the TOS. :)
In all seriousness though, this represents a bigger issue: Can autonomous agents enter into legal contracts? By signing up for a GitHub account you agreed to the terms of service - a legal contract. Can an agent do that?
I think this is a key question. In the May 2024 blog post about "fleet response" it sounds like Waymo has a lawyerly set of rules they follow to distinguish between remote operation and providing guidance to the self-driving system.
Much like phone-a-friend, when the Waymo vehicle encounters a particular
situation on the road, the autonomous driver can reach out to a human fleet
response agent for additional information to contextualize its environment.
The Waymo Driver does not rely solely on the inputs it receives from the
fleet response agent and it is in control of the vehicle at all times.
[...]
Fleet response can influence the Waymo Driver's path, whether indirectly
through indicating lane closures, explicitly requesting the AV use a
particular lane, or, in the most complex scenarios, explicitly proposing a
path for the vehicle to consider. The Waymo Driver evaluates the input from
fleet response and independently remains in control of driving.
Has Waymo been responsible, in any material way, for any deaths? To my knowledge they have not. (from a quick search: their cars have been involved in one fatal collision total, where a "SUV rear-ends stopped vehicle behind stopped Waymo at high speed, one passenger in the human-driven car and animal declared dead", a situation in which their car was obviously only peripherally involved)
That’s individual vs corporate liability, and ‘best efforts’ when things are being outsourced to a different geographic region is riskier than a locally managed decisions team would be an interesting argument.
If a person from the Philippines comes to the USA, they are allowed to drive on our roads as long as they have a valid license in the Philippines (no international permit required).
I would assume that would apply here too.
But also, they aren't actually driving the car. They are giving hints to the autonomous driver.
Really struggling to figure out what this is at a glance. Buried in the text is this line which I think is the tl;dr:
"As a result, every change can now be traced back not only to a diff, but to the reasoning that produced it."
This is a good idea, but I just don't see how you build an entire platform around this. This feels like a feature that should be added to GitHub. Something to see in the existing PR workflow. Why do I want to go to a separate developer platform to look at this information?
I'm sure i'm missing something but can you not ask the llm to add the reasoning behind the commit in the comments as part of the general llm instructions?
As an adult that interacts only with other adults in good faith, it's easy to look at this and feel outraged.
But there is a very real and dangerous situation where children and adolescents are using Discord with zero guardrails, constantly interacting with adults - many of whom are predators. This is happening every day. Millions of children around the world "meet people" playing games online, take the conversation to Discord, and then get brought into a very dark world online that their brains are simply not ready for.[^1]
I don't like the idea of blanket face scans/ID scans with that data stored in perpetuity - but age verification of some kind is a must IMO.
Discord has parental controls. There's a myriad of services out there that restrict and monitor phone usage for kids. Use them and lock their phone and discord accounts down to nothing.
Restricting adults because parents decide to give little Timmy unrestricted access to technology is stupid.
This is how Musk is going to make good on his promise to pay back the original people that funded his Twitter purchase and offload that debt.
Twitter (X) was folded into xAI. Now xAI is folded into SpaceX. SpaceX will IPO (or be merged with Tesla) and those investors will be able to sell their shares - the debt is "gone", his benefactors make money, and retail investors pick up the short end of the stick.
reply