Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | taftster's commentslogin

"good laptops" yes. But I haven't seen a "great" one in a very long time. The Windows market is asleep at the wheel and a copilot button is not going to resuscitate it.

I think the Surface is as close to great as you can get. I'm not saying that I know the whole market of laptops, you probably know better. But the Surface is pretty good, which is weird because it seems like Microsoft isn't really focusing on it or even backing away from it.

I agree with the parent, that Macbooks are way ahead in terms of usability, polish and charm for a laptop. And the performance is outright stellar.


> Other than Microsoft nobody even makes decent laptops in the Windows world.

I completely agree. I actually quit like and get along with my Surface Laptop. It's a really nice computer overall, worthy. It's the closest you get to the same polish and usability that Apple has in their macbooks.

I absolutely love my M4 macbook pro, it's definitely the best laptop I've ever owned. I had an older macbook pro that I kept way past its lifetime too.


The Surface is garbage. My last work-issued one caught fire.

I've never had any complaint's about Asus' laptops, though I've only used their Zenbook and Zephyrus lines.


I think the problem is that Microsoft's hardware quality is super inconsistent. We had a ton of employees using Surface laptops and tablets at my previous company, particularly sales and support. The company stopped buying them after a few years because the first year failure rate was almost 15%. However, the folks that had the good ones often kept them for 5 years or more.

woah, how did it catch on fire? I want to hear this.

Don't know. Plugged it in one morning, and it wasn't turning on. So I tried detaching it from its base because that had been a problem before, but it was dead, so you needed to find the little manual release thing that's inside one of the vents, which I didn't have a tool for, so I gave up on that. Then I turned to ask a coworker to try their charging cord (as mine had to be replaced once after it failed, and I assumed the same thing had happened again), and by the time I got back to my desk a small whisp of smoke was rising from the keyboard, which is strange, because to my understanding that's not where the computer bits are in that laptop.

So I unplugged it, at which point I noticed the smoke was increasing. So we doused it in CO2 (maybe N2, idk, some cheap gas we had lying around for the wetlab), pried the computer part off of the base, and then IT handled sending it back to M$.


You overestimate my ability to keep mental context for 6 months.

And additionally, most of the PRs I have seen reviewed, the quality hasn't really degraded or improved since LLMs have started contributing. I think we have been rubber stamping PRs for quite sometime. Not sure that AI is doing any worse.


Depends on what the context is, at least for me.

The cognitive load on a code review tends to be higher when its submitted by someone who hasn't been onboarded well enough and it doesn't matter if they used an AI or not. A lot of the mistakes are trivial or they don't align with status quo so the code review turns into a way of explaining how things should be.

This is in contrast to reviewing the code of someone who has built up their own context (most likely on the back of those previous reviews, by learning). The feedback is much more constructive and gets into other details, because you can trust the author to understand what you're getting at and they're not just gonna copy/paste your reply into a prompt and be like "make this make sense."

It's just offloading the burden to me because I have the knowledge in my head. I know at least one or two people who will end up being forever-juniors because of this and they can't be talked out of it because their colleague is the LLM now.


[dead]


Well, it should be the approver of the PR, not the author (AI slop or human slop) that is accountable. I don't ever want an AI to auto-approve a PR (or maybe only for very small things, like dependency-bot kind of tasks).

Not saying that's how it's done, in terms of accountability. The skin-in-the-game thing is hopefully still present, even with AI. But you're right, there's risk.


This used to happen a lot. But I don't think that many modern builders require existing directory these days.

Your point is valid though. It would be much preferable to include build/ in your root .gitignore so that the directory is never tracked.


Both points here are appreciated. One that a README file as a "placeholder" for a directory gives the opportunity to describe why said empty directory exists. I would be slightly concerned though if my build process picked up this file during packaging. But that's probably a minor concern and your point stands.

Additionally, the AI comment is ironic as well. It's like we're finally writing good documentation for the sake of agents, in a way that we should have been writing all along for other sentient consumers. It's funny to see documentation now as basically the horse instead of the cart.


I agree with you. Empty .gitignore would be a "smell" to me. Whereas .gitkeep tells me exactly what purpose it serves. I like the semantic difference here that you describe. I don't like when multiple .gitignore files are littered throughout the codebase.

I'm not sure that governments actually create them, not prolifically at least. There's been some state actor influence over the years, for sure.

However, exploits that are known (only) by a state actor would most definitely be a closely guarded secret. It's only convenient for a state to release information about an exploit when either it's been made public or it has more consequences for not releasing.

So yes, exactly what you said. It's easier to find the exploits than to create them yourself. By extrapolation, you would have to assume that each state maintains its set of secret exploits, possibly never getting to use them for fear of the other side knowing of their existence. Cat & Mouse, Spy vs Spy for sure.


I don't want to be called "gorgeous", but I admit that some of my "love language" is positive affirmations. As a man, I want to know that I am making a positive impact on my family, my wife, my community, my work. I crave that strong positive feedback, just as much or more as anyone.

So yes, I think it is a bit sexist or at minimum gender typing. And I don't think it's necessarily a "lie" for you to overstate your feelings. You might have matured in your approach, but I believe that everyone appreciates (to some variable measurement) positive affirmation from their partners. And that your lie was recognizing your partners needs for inputs, to help them in their self-image, and to assure them in their self-doubts. These are not lies.


My problem isn't with positive affirmation, which I will happily give. Complimenting others, but something so excessively superlative that it feels like manipulation.

For example if I told you 'good thinking', you would probably think I am giving a token of appreciation to you. If I told you 'wow, you are absolutely brillant!', you'd probably think I'm mocking you or trying to manipulate you into doing something.


I'm so grateful for flat LCD screens. Man, all those CRT boxes. Yikes.

The rest of this video, it doesn't look like the world has changed all that much since 1995. Computing just kind of looks the same. I guess minus the lack of phones in everyone's hands.


And the fact that the UIs are less responsive and have worse UX now.


My UI is pretty responsive. Of course, I also don't run MacOS or Windows, so...


I guess you also don't run any Electron apps?


If I can avoid it!

Well, I mean, the first part is a song by Don McLean called American Pie. You might know that, unsure that everyone will pick it out though.

One of the most famous play choices at karaoke bars these days too. I think because the song is a long story, of sorts? But it's a terribly long song and I will leave to take a smoke break anytime it gets chosen. You're going to be there for a good 10 minutes before it concludes.

So maybe the AI prompt was something like, "take CVE-2026-24061 and compose a song lyric in the style of American Pie by Don Mclean". I wonder if you would get similar results with that prompt.


The rest of it seems to be substantially edited by an LLM too, or at least it's composed much like LLM outputs often are these days: “not a gradual decline, not scanner attrition, not a data pipeline problem, but a step function.”

"Not X, not Y, not Z" is a common LLM tic, and there's a few more like it in there.


I mean, that's fair. I guess I just wanted to put my old man hat on. The song is a tribute to an era of lost innocence. Which I think is quite apropos to the current situation surrounding telnet. Vestiges of the days of the early internet continue to disappear, almost like an endangered species. Old/obsolete protocols, like telnet, are pined for by old guys like me.


Oh, I have fond memories, I learned to touch-type playing MUDs.


I was at a bar a few months back, drinking some brewskis with my broskis, and there was a guy with a guitar playing some songs. He started singing (bye bye miss) American Pie. Somewhere around the 4th verse he got stuck in a loop and sang that verse 3 or 4 times before he gave up.


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

Search: