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

Wow that's really interesting. Something I do very often, for libraries, languages, APIs, even shopping is:

"look into the possibilities for X search the web, do thorough comparison. look on HackerNews both to gather sources and gauge sentiment in the comments"

this yields pretty good results IMO.

If I am using an API/library, I will also ask "is this approach idiomatic? what does the documentation say? look through at least 10 pages online"



Their net profit was a little over $100 billion last fiscal year. They get $20 Billion+ in pure profit from Google being their default search engine.

That’s 20% of their profit


Google paying Apple to be the default search engine is not the same as Apple selling $20 billion worth of ads to track you.

Google isn’t just paying Apple $20 billion, it’s based on click throughs on ads in Safari. Apple is very much getting paid based on the ad economy.

But it still isn't Apple doing the tracking or receiving the data about your Google searches. They aren't Apple's ads, they're Google's ads.

How does that matter? Apple is still seeing 20% of its profits from ads and Google is still tracking you through Apple’s browser and Apple is getting paid for it.

> How does that matter?

Keeping in mind the context of the overall thread we're in, where the OP said this:

> Apple's commitment to privacy and security is really cool to see. It's also an amazing strategic play that they are uniquely in the position to take advantage of. Google and Meta can't commit to privacy because they need to show you ads, whereas Apple feels more like a hardware company to me.

And then further down somebody replies with this:

> Apple is an ad company now though

The implication was that, because Apple sells ads now, they must be tracking all of your personal data in the same way that Google does. And then that train of thought was further continued with the implication that, because Apple receives "20% of its profits from ads and Google" (lumping them both together), Apple ergo is receiving 20% of its profits through tracking all of your personal data. But it's not Apple tracking all of your personal data, it's Google tracking it, and they would track it whether they're the default search engine on iOS or not.

The distinction matters to me, and it's why I buy Apple products but not Google products.


They pay to be the default, not the only possible search provider.

They pay per click.

Again, they get paid a cut of Google's ad revenue from Safari users. This has one impact on Apple's design choices - Google remains the default search engine.

Notably, this hasn't stopped Apple from introducing multiple anti-tracking technologies into Safari which prevents Google from collecting information from Safari users.

If I open up a new tab in safari it tells me that in the last 30 days Safari prevented 109 trackers from profiling me and that 55% of the sites I use implement trackers. It also tells me that the most blocked tracker is googletagmanager.com across 78 websites


Yes it is.

Is this what you consider discourse? At least justify your position, don't shit out some drive-by popular opinion that I can't even begin to respond to.

Operating ads directly or reaping profits from renting out your platform to the highest bidder, it's still ad revenue and profit.

The point is that Apple will make money any way that it can, including ads. That's why iOS privacy is worse than its competitors. You can't install an app without telling Apple because if you could, Apple wouldn't be able to monetize you as well. You can't get your location without also telling Apple because if you could, Apple wouldn't be able to build its location services as easily. No such problems on Android.

I do kinda the opposite where I run my AI in a sandbox. it sends dummy tokens to APIs. the proxy then injects the real creds. so, the AI never has access to creds.

https://clauderon.com/ -- not really ready for others to use it though


Are you really implying that generative AI doesn't enable things that were not previously possible?

Name some then! I initially scoffed too but I can only think of stuff LLM’s make easier not things that were impossible previously.

Isn't that the vast majority of products? By making things easier they change the scale it is accomplished at? Farming wasn't previously impossible before the tractor.

People seemingly have some very odd views on products when it comes to AI.


It's actually a fair question. There are software projects I wouldn't have taken on without an LLM. Not because I couldn't make it. But because of the time needed to create it.

I could have taken the time to do the math to figure out what the rewards structure is for my Wawa points and compare it to my car's fuel tank to discover I should strictly buy sandwiches and never gas.

People have been making nude celebrity photos for decades now with just Photoshop.

Some activities have gotten a speed up. But so far it was all possible before just possibly not feasible.


Would it be fair to say a car or plane aren’t significant then, given we could always traverse by horse or boat?

What did internet bring?

For the most part, it hasn't. What do you consider previously impossible, and how is it good for the world?

> were not previously possible?

How obtuse. The poster is saying they don't enable anything of value.


Can you name one thing generative AI enables that wasn't previously possible?

Can you name one thing a plow enables that wasn't previously possible?

This line of thinking is ridiculous.


A plow enables you to till land you couldn't before with your bare hands.

The phone let's you talk to someone you couldn't before when shouting can't.

ChatGPT let's you...

Please complete the sentence without an analogy


This conversation is naive and simplifies technologies into “does it achieve something you otherwise couldn’t”.

The answer is that chatgpt allows you to do things more efficiently than before. Efficiency doesn’t sound sexy but this is what adds up to higher prosperity.

Arguments like this can be used against internet. What does it allow you to do now that you couldn’t do before?

Answer might be “oh I don’t know, it allows me to search and index information, talk to friends”.

It doesn’t sound that sexy. You can still visit a library. You can still phone your friends. But the ease of doing so adds up and creates a whole ecosystem that brings so many things.


>A plow enables you to till land you couldn't before with your bare hands.

It does not. You could still till the land with hand tools. You just get a lot more done.

ChatGPT let's me program in languages I was not efficient in before.

Anyway, I'm done with your technology purity contest, it has about zero basis in reality.


Why are you so mad? You're the only one in these comments dismissing arguments because you don't like them. Are you invested?

No. I'm just stating that a huge portion of these comments have their own emotional investment and are confusing OUGHT/IS. On top of that their arguments aren't particularly sound, and if they were applied to any other technologies that we worship here in the church of HN would seem like an advanced form of hypocrisy.

They tilled by hand for thousands of years before inventing a plow to speed it up.

They spoke slowly, through letters, until phones sped it up.

We coded slowly, letter by letter, until agents sped it up.


...generate piles of low quality content for almost free.

AI is fascinating technology with undoubtedly fantastic applications in the future, but LLMs mostly seem to be doing two things: provide a small speedup for high quality work, and provide a massive speedup to low quality work.

I don't think it's comparable to the plow or the phone in its impact on society, unless that impact will be drowning us in slop.


There is a particular problem that comes with your line of thinking and why AI will never be able to solve it. In fact it's not a solved human problem either.

And that is slop work is always easier and cheaper than doing something right. We can make perfectly good products as it is, yet we find Shien and Temu filled with crap. That's not related to AI. Humans drown themselves in trash whenever we gain the technological capability to do so.

To put this another way, you cannot get a 10x speed up in high quality work without also getting a 1000x speed up in low quality work. We'll pretty much have to kill any further technological advancement if that's a showstopper for you.


League of Legends is the only thing keeping me on Windows

> "Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics on scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject but was pronounced dead at the scene," DHS said. "The suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID—this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-involved-shooting-r...


we can never trust a word coming out of DHS ever again

Were the mag dumping into the lifeless body also "protective shots"? Holy crap they're lying straight to your faces with video evidence against them. How come they can do this without consequence?

Wait Dagger and Docker are related?

Yes, I am the co-founder of Docker and also of Dagger. The other two co-founders of Dagger, Sam Alba and Andrea Luzzardi, were early employees of Docker.

The companies themselves are not related beyond that.


after trying out Claude Cowork, I can definitely believe it was vibe coded


Static analysis certainly can find runtime bugs


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

Search: