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

They didn't say "nobody can replace the battery themselves", and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer". Relative to items with replaceable batteries (a TV remote control, a camera, a pre-iPhone mobile phone), the batteries are extremely hard to replace.

The batteries are also not safe to replace, relative to items with replaceable batteries. There is a very low chance of me accidentally damaging my TV remote control while replacing the batteries.

None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.

There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".


A "normal consumer", at least in most of the US, can take their iPhone to an Apple store, a Best Buy, and probably several small phone repair services that have small stores or kiosks in a nearby mall or inside a Walmart.

From an environmental point of view it doesn't matter if you do the repair yourself or you have it done by someone else.


> From an environmental point of view it doesn't matter if you do the repair yourself or you have it done by someone else.

The added cost and friction will de facto make it less repairable.


> and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer".

Which is why I used a normal consumer as an example.

> None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.

I’m not defending Apple, I’m defending accuracy. When someone says something inaccurate about someone or something I oppose, I try to correct that too. It’s important that arguments are based on truth, because when they are not people start dismissing the true with the false.

My comment history shows I’m an Apple user but am constantly criticising its current state and Tim Cook. You’ll find more comments of mine criticising than praising them.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why you see someone making an argument once and immediately assume they may have ulterior motives, and why you’re actively ignoring the arguments which do not feed your view, including my clear and repeated assertions in the thread that Apple should absolutely do better.

> There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".

Which was not once my argument. I abhor whataboutism.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I’d appreciate if you didn’t straw man.


Pentax sensibly decided to add native DNG capability a long time ago, the raw files work everywhere I've tried them.

(Except DaVinci, which I couldn't get to do anything without freezing for minutes at a time this morning.)


Erf, I do hope they add support soon !

I thought the same when I got a Fuji, but the issue is support for the X-Trans sensor. Turns out that converting to DNG doesn't change that and software that opens the DNG still needs to understand how to use the data in it.

DxO PhotoLab supports RAFs these days, and does not have a subscription model. They have black friday sales, if the RRP seems a bit much.

I've just installed DaVinci and pointed it at my photos from this year and so far it's been frozen for 8 minutes, not initially confidence inspiring.


What platform, what storage and how large is the directory? Might be a difference in experience for people on Windows trying to open N-TB over a NFS share compared to Linux N-GB locally.

That was a Windows laptop, local SSD, about 200gb of raw files (fuji, pentax) from this year so far. Plenty of ram, plenty of spare storage, but no discrete GPU which might have been the issue. I might try it on Linux at some point.

It's both, really.

The companies selling us the service aren't saying "you should treat this LLM as a potentially hostile user on your machine and set up a new restricted account for it accordingly", they're just saying "download our app! connect it to all your stuff!" and we can't really blame ordinary users for doing that and getting into trouble.


There's a growing ecosystem of guardrailing methods, and these companies are contributing. Antrophic specifically puts in a lot of effort to better steer and characterize their models AFAIK.

I primarily use Claude via VS Code, and it defaults to asking first before taking any action.

It's simply not the wild west out here that you make it out to be, nor does it need to be. These are statistical systems, so issues cannot be fully eliminated, but they can be materially mitigated. And if they stand to provide any value, they should be.

I can appreciate being upset with marketing practices, but I don't think there's value in pretending to having taken them at face value when you didn't, and when you think people shouldn't.


> It's simply not the wild west out here that you make it out to be

It is though. They are not talking about users using Claude code via vscode, they’re talking about non technical users creating apps that pipe user input to llms. This is a growing thing.


The best solution to which are the aforementioned better defaults, stricter controls, and sandboxing (and less snakeoil marketing).

Less so the better tuning of models, unlike in this case, where that is going to be exactly the best fit approach most probably.


I'm a naturally paranoid, very detail-oriented, man who has been a professional software developer for >25 years. Do you know anyone who read the full terms and conditions for their last car rental agreement prior to signing anything? I did that.

I do not expect other people to be as careful with this stuff as I am, and my perception of risk comes not only from the "hang on, wtf?" feeling when reading official docs but also from seeing what supposedly technical users are talking about actually doing on Reddit, here, etc.

Of course I use Claude Code, I'm not a Luddite (though they had a point), but I don't trust it and I don't think other people should either.


I'm only good enough to impress people who don't know what a good guitar player sounds like.

My advice to people, which seems to work OK, is just to have the guitar out and ready to play wherever you're likely to be - maybe even in the way so it has to be moved sometimes - and just pick it up and play it as often as possible.

Waiting for the kettle to boil? Play the guitar. TV is showing ads? Mute it and play the guitar. Your partner needs to go to the bathroom before you both go out? Play the guitar.

It doesn't matter what you play, it doesn't have to be good, it can be a random improvisation, it can be scales. Your fingers are learning.


It depends on what your goals are. If you're doing it for fun or as a creative outlet this is great advice. If you're trying to actively get better you won't do it this way after a certain point. You need to be actively practicing and engaging your brain. It does matter what you play and how you play it.


Sure, there's "deliberate practice" and it matters - but so many people seem to think if they're playing that's what they should be doing, or it's a waste of time. In reality that often isn't much fun, and they start to associate the instrument with this sort of difficult and often disappointing experience, and they give up.


You are right.

I think there are quite a lot of people who are only interested in playing and never deliberately practising. They do not get that far (they do not have to!).

And then the vast majority of aspring guitar players who frequent learning online material (including me) spend all of their time practising and learning, and too little of it playing for fun and performing. Most are constantly frustrated about their progress.

Then there is a small group of people, who spend a lot of time playing for fun and performing, but also a good amount of time deliberately practising. In my experience, those tend to be the ones people think are great players.


For me it was the "it's not x"/"it's y" stuff and some other structures Claude is very fond of using all the time. Perhaps humans are starting to write like LLMs!


Perhaps, just perhaps, LLMs are just statistical models that literally can't create novel things, therefore any structure LLMs write was learnt from human writing?

But who knows!


What kind of human writing has "it's not X—it's Y" in every single paragraph?

The answer is none. LLMs haven't accurately modeled human writing for years, current models have been smacked on the head with the coding RLHF bat so much, they all write distinctly inhuman text.


The thing is, people are screaming “AI” when they see a single “it's not X—it's Y" pattern in a post, despite this being a fairly common construct.

People are nitpicking every tiny thing in their search for proof of AI. It’s not useful and ends up dominating the conversation. AI panic is degrading the value of forums at least as much as actual AI at this point.


The user thing is what I currently do too. I've thought about containers but then it's confusing for everyone when I ask it to create and use containers itself.


So don't let them interact with anything external. You can push and pull to their git project folders over the local filesystem or network, they don't even need access to a remote.


Unless you are talking about running a local model, that’s not possible.


Obviously if you're running Claude Code you need a token for that and an internet connection, that's kind of a given. What I'm talking about is permission (OS level, not a leaky sandbox) to access the user's files, environment variables, project credentials for git remotes, signing keys, etc etc.


Any sign of AI, TBH. I don't come to HN to ask Claude, I already pay Anthropic for that.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: