Youtube's downvote button has served me quite well for this purpose.

Yeah, Mithril got this right over 10 years ago. Still good to see at least one big player finally catching up. React's state model has always been a pain to work with.

Same here. I tried codex a few days ago for a very simple task (remove any references of X within this long text string) and it fumbled it pretty hard. Very strange.

yeah I'm in the same boat. Codex can't do this one task, and constantly forgets what I've told it, and I'm reading these comments saying how is so great to the point that I'm wondering if I'm the one taking the crazy pills. Maybe we're being A/B tested and don't know about it?

No, no one that's super boosting the LLMs ever tells you what they are working on or give any reasonable specifics about how and why it's beneficial. When someone does, it's a fairly narrow scope and typically inline with my experience.

They can save you some time by doing some fairly complex basic tasks that you can write in plain language instead of coding. To get good results you really need a lot of underlying knowledge yourself and essentially, I think of it as a translator. I can write a program in very good detail using normal language and then the LLM can convert it to code with reasonable accuracy.

I haven't been able to depend on it to do anything remotely advanced. They all make up API endpoints or methods or fill in data with things that simply don't exist, but that's the nature of the model.

You misread me. I'm one of the people you're complaining about. Claude code has been great in my experience and no I don't have a GitHub repo of code that's been generated for you to tell me that's trivial and unadvanced and that a child could do it.

What I'm saying was to compare my experience with Claude code vs Codex with GPT-5. CC's better than codex in my experience, contrary to GP's comment.

Maybe, just maybe, people are lying on the internet. And maybe those people have a financial interest in doing so.

You're framing of "sex icky" is a common reductionist approach to remove all humanity from the topic and try and make it purely logical. But that's always been a ridiculous way to argue.

The human experience has never been pure reason. A picture of a naked person will have wildly different effects than a picture of a dog, even though you could technically say they're both "just pixels on a screen". Reductionism doesn't get an argument anywhere; it's too commonly an intellectually lazy defense of the vulgar.

Remember, that the SCOTUS judgement of what obscenity is defined as, is "I'll know it when I see it".

I prefer reductionist rather than the current standard of 'whatever 9 fucks think of it'.

Of course you prefer reductionist, because that fits your interest of doing nothing, rather than seeking a solution to the very real destructive consequences of the genre in question. That's what I mean by intellectually lazy.

Porn is way easier to define than obscenity, so I don't see that being a problem.

In many cases, bans can have unintended side effects which might make the means of acquiring/distributing/producing "banned X" far worse (aka the cure is worse than the disease).

At least in the case of South Korea, all porn is treated equally illegally, so the country has a really high incidence of secret cameras peeping in places like women’s bathrooms, because that’s just as illegal as a scripted porn film.

You're the only one who asserted a percentage. So allow me to clarify, when I wrote that comment I had no belief that a law need be 100% effective for it to be a useful law. I also believe there's a lot of room between 100% effective and "backfiring". I don't believe this is a binary situation but there's a spectrum (that isn't one dimensional)

I hope with this added context that my previous comment will make much more sense and you can interpret it closer to what I intended.

I'll just add, I don't think most people work in those absolutes. So I'd be wary of jumping to the extreme interpretation. People might interpret you as being disingenuous and using the logical fallacy "logical extreme" or "reductio ad absurdum". But I'm pretty sure you're not doing that because then I'd be grossly misinterpreting you, right?

I misread your "It always backfires" comment as making something illegal always backfires, rather than the desire to make things simple always backfires (note that "always" implies 100%). So now I see all you're saying is "be careful", which is fine.

This is just how people speak. Sometimes qualifiers are critical, sometimes they are a bit of exaggeration. But always doesn't mean always because only a sith deals in absolutes.

> if one were to operate at that level then Facebook would be illegal.

Sounds great, where do I sign?

Sure ban porn, but IMO ban social media first. Or at the very least, mandate educational materials on it. Kids grow up thinking it's important and it ruins their lives. Brainrot content deadens their sensory inputs. Same thing needs to happen with AI; we seriously need some required education in these spaces.

I would rather we ban censors from positions of power.

Anything can be used for evil, doesn't mean that thing instantly becomes evil.

Even though the conscious brain doesn't always directly control motor skills, I wouldn't call it "merely an observer". It's your consciousness that decides your goals and beliefs; the rest of the body "learns" those things and is then preconditioned to react accordingly.

But they are separate systems. Harsh experiences (traumas) can teach your body some bad lessons in such a way that not even your conscious mind can overcome. In these situations, you can't "think your way out" of these traumatic consequences in, say, a talk therapy session; you need to deal with the body directly/somatically to recover instead.

> It's your consciousness that decides your goals and beliefs; the rest of the body "learns" those things and is then preconditioned to react accordingly.

Quotation needed.

What are the most common issue/mistakes that make communities fizzle out?

Communities are basically promises: you create expectations, and they usually fizzle out when that commitment isn’t met. Same applies to events.

Most people think structure or rules keep a community alive, but they are just tools. What keeps communities alive is just being there for the users and in the channel they are used to talk and be active (whatsapp in my case)

Also when leading a community it is important to step back. Let others speak/ to leave them be. It is easy to "monopolize the mic" but the real magic happens when others start owning the space. Your role as a community organizer is to create a stage for others.

if you ever moderated an IRC channel, it’s the same energy: keep the lights on, be present, but don’t over-control :^)

Even figuratively, it's not criminal.