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

This get brought up often, and it’s such a lazy example. Apple forces you to give them their cut (you have to pay for developer license even just to keep your own personal apps on your phone).

Valve isn’t forcing you to use Steam.


Valve's most anticompetitive rule is that steam keys you distribute outside steam shouldn't be sold for less than the price on steam. Would that Apple were the same.

Which does not actually seem anticompetitive at all.

Why would the capabilities drop instead of stagnate?

Because technologies, programming languages, best practices, won't stay frozen. If LLMs cannot catch up with it, I think it can be considered as a drop in capability. No?

Close, but no. What will happen is that "technologies, programming languages, best practices" will stay frozen because human innovation will drop, and the whole field will stagnate.

This is the biggest fear! I don’t see an easy fix.

Will the developer of a new programming language be able to reach out to model companies to give a huge amount of training data, ensuring that the models are good at that new language? I don’t think a small team can write enough code, the models already struggle in medium-popularity languages that have years of history. They hallucinate lua functionality sometimes, for example, even though I’m sure there is lots of lua code out there.

So if most people use coding agents, we’re stuck with the current most popular languages because no new language will get past the barrier of having enough code that models can write it well, meaning nobody adopts the new language, etc.

Same thing with libraries and frameworks - technical decisions are already being made based on “is this popular enough that the agents can use it well?” Rather than a newer library that meets our needs perfectly but isn’t in the training data


Less than it takes to manufacture and transports the barrels of oils it replaces.

What are negative consequences attributed to have microplastics, and have to the compare to the risks associated with say drinking alcohol?

Drinking alcohol is probably way worse, but you can choose to not drink, you can't choose to live a normal life and not get microplastics.

Also, alcohol has existed since forever and humans have been drinking it since the beginning of civilization. We have a pretty good idea of what it does and how to keep it under control. Microplastics are a recent thing, it may be a dud, but it may be a serious problem for future generations, so keeping an eye on them is a good thing.


Sure, but the popular news and people concerned about it are generally much closer to hysteria than “keeping an eye on them.”

Which might be the correct answer! Something that's extremely hard to undo should have us much more worried than keeping an eye. We should have tons of research projects running on this.

“The research in microplastics could be used to control and/or eliminate people.”

I just wrote the argument to get all the necessary research funded.


As for plasticisers common in plastics there's increased risk of premature birth and some other stuff. Also a much higher risk of PCOS (which is why an insane amount of women have it now) and some other stuff among the male offspring.

It's too early to say anything definitive but early research links them to serious risks, including increased risks of heart attacks, stroke, and mortality, alongside potential inflammation, metabolic disruption, and reproductive harm.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/01/microplastics...

> Animal and cellular studies have linked microplastics to biological changes including inflammation, an impaired immune system, deteriorated tissues, altered metabolic function, abnormal organ development, cell damage and more. A recent large-scale review of existing research by scholars at the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that exposure to microplastics is suspected to harm reproductive, digestive and respiratory health and suggested a link to colon and lung cancer.

> More than two years after the procedure, those who had microplastics in their plaque had a higher risk of heart attack, stroke and death than those who didn't.

> So far, his research shows that these plastics can get inside cells and lead to major changes in gene expression. "These findings suggest that the particles contribute to vascular disease progression, emphasizing the urgency of studying their impact," he said.

> Children, whose organs are still developing, could be at higher risk of harm

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151227/

> Thus, chronic exposure to low concentrations of microplastics in the air could be associated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases depending on an individual’s susceptibility and the particle characteristics.

> The results of cellular and animal experiments have shown that microplastics can affect various systems in the human body, including the digestive, respiratory, endocrine, reproductive, and immune systems.

> In addition, microplastics interfere with the production, release, transport, metabolism, and elimination of hormones, which can cause endocrine disruption and lead to various endocrine disorders, including metabolic disorders, developmental disorders, and even reproductive disorders (i.e., infertility, miscarriage, and congenital malformations)

---

The "compared to drinking alcohol" bit feels like bait and I won't engage. They are two completely different risk factors. For one, alcohol doesn't concentrate in brain tissue.


You did the Python right but the analysis wrong. Looking at it on a graph you can see that interpreting a single growth rate for the entire period (even if you stop pre-covid) doesn’t make sense.

You can see linear growth from 2010-2017. Then slow decline or at best a flatline from 2018-2021. Then they went crazy in 2022-2025.

Now if we just do 162k - 30k we are back to 132k, basically same ballpark as pre-COVID.


That's not how stocks are measured on wall street. They picked the dumb metric.

I imagine land is more expensive in South Korea than in the US.

Because they do things like this (Green belt).

Because they have a population density 5x that of the US.

South Korea 13x more dense than usa. It’s even slightly denser than India.

We're comparing cities though. Seoul and Manhattan are comparable because they both have features that prevents sprawl.

What Adblock are you going to use when people use the app and the ads come from the same domain as the actual content?

Your own local LLM instructed to strip out product placement / recommendations?

Ask Codex how to filter it!

Clearly uneducated take.

The photos hitting my solar panel don’t travel through the straight of Hormuz.


You may want to check you spelling or explain what photos hitting your solar panels has to do with anything before you star throwing stones in your glass house of ignorance

You have the causality wrong, other than the hardcore group of preachers the rest are swinging that way because it’s what the congregation wants to hear. Preaching the opposite message will drop attendance even more the it has already dropped and will effectively mean having to close the church.

What is the implication your going for?

its unaffordable

Poor research then, as end user prices are unfortunately not correlated with the cost of renewables.

In the land of the ignorant, the man with one fact is king

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

Search: