11–20 of 72 posts
That header picture is top slop! Seriously, please stop it. If you talk about an abstract topic, feel free to have no picture, just text.
The whole thing feels AI-padded.
Most of the examples used to justify creation vs consumption can also be explained by low scale vs high scale (cost sensitive at high scale) or portability.
That header picture is top slop! Seriously, please stop it. If you talk about an abstract topic, feel free to have no picture, just text.
As the author, do you just don't see what ridiculous image the slop machine spewed out - a kind of visual dyslexia where you do not register problematic hallucinations?
I can go on for a while hypothesizing, and none of the reasons I can come up with warrant using obviously bad AI slop images.
Is it disdain for your users - they won't see it/they won't care/they don't deserve something put together with care? Is it a lack of self-respect? Do people just genuinely not care and think that an article must have visuals to support it, no matter how crappy?
The mind truly boggles.
That header picture is top slop! Seriously, please stop it. If you talk about an abstract topic, feel free to have no picture, just text.
I'm fascinated by the thought process, or absence thereof, involved in such an image ending up in something that's obviously meant for consumption by others. As the author, do you just don't see what ridiculous image the slop machine spewed out - a kind of visual dyslexia where you do not register problematic hallucinations? I can go on for a while hypothesizing, and none of the reasons I can come up with warrant usi…
Snark aside, I think it's laziness and the shotgun approach. The author writes some rough thoughts down, has an AI "polish" them and generate an image, and posts an article. Shares it on HN. Do it enough, especially on a slow Sunday morning, and you'll get some engagement despite the detractors like us in the comments. Eventually you've got some readers.
That header picture is top slop! Seriously, please stop it. If you talk about an abstract topic, feel free to have no picture, just text.
Frankly the right tool is sometimes the one you have in front of you.
But anyone who's seen disaster DIY videos or worse had a house full of said projects from previous owners knows, there are problems caused by "When all you have is a hammer..." And an enthusiastic inexperienced amateur.
Apple seems to completely stuck with their macOS/iOS split, and probably will never do anything about it. Now iPadOS & macOS look and feel more similar than ever before, but it's all just facade. They should actually commit really hard on merging these OS, but they can't open up iOS, because that would threaten the 30% cut and so its simply not going to happen.
I just wish this were true, all I see now is convergence between the two platforms. Perhaps a linux workstation is still configurable enough to stay true.
I did within the last year switch from Windows to Mac for my primary desktop, and it feels like I regressed about a decade in the dumbification of computing compared to where Windows was headed.
But they really loves multi-screens :) For me, multi-screens are a big waste, I find virtual screens for more useful. The only real use multi-screens have for me is debugging a program with some kind of user interface. And the 2nd screen only needs to be a text terminal.
But, I have not used Windows for decades, so I wonder if these multi-screen setups and popular due to how the Windows GUI work and are really needed.
That header picture is top slop! Seriously, please stop it. If you talk about an abstract topic, feel free to have no picture, just text.
The whole thing feels AI-padded.
So much writing on the internet seems derivative nowadays (because it is, thanks to AI). I’d rather not read it though, it’s boring and feels like a samey waste of time. I do question how much of this is a feedback loop from people reading LLM text all the time, and subconsciously copying the structure and formatting in their own writing, but that’s probably way too optimistic.