Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nemomarx's commentslogin

It would be impressive as a labor of love, right? Most memorable gimmick sites from the early 2000s were like that.

Yeah, I mean having AI generate it is fine for me as that's the world we live in today. It's just, until few years ago, the meaning of such projects was different. "Do cool things and talk about it". That's different from "Pay somebody 50 bucks and show the result" or "Have AI generate code and show the result".

Will take some more time for people to accept that such projects (oftentimes) are no longer "labor of love" but "I had that cool idea and let AI implement it".


I've always wondered why I don't see passed on savings for the "amazon day" thing. It's gotta be way better for their logistics to deliver bulk orders, or pick a standardized delivery day for each neighborhood or something. Why do they only offer a single dollar of credit for choosing it?

I don’t know how much they are saving. On the one hand they save a stop (they aren’t saving a van as there are likely already vans delivering near by). on the other they have to hold on to stock longer waiting for things to all be ready. It costs money to store things

I get 6% back instead of 5% with my Amazon card which is more than enough to incentivize me in many situations.

What kind of jobs? Say we get real time translation between various languages. What will I do?

It means you can communicate with people from anywhere in the world and do business with them. Real time or not.

So whatever you do, now you have a larger market of potential customers, since your work in is not limited by language anymore.

Tourism is the largest economic sector on this planet. And high quality, cheap translations increase the reach explosively both for seller and customer.


they need a day job to pay the bills then, which does cut down on the scope of videos you can make

if we could have less working hours or cheaper rent or less expensive bills more people could do hobby stuff again ofc. but right now is tricky for that


Generally speaking, that's how hobbies work. You do them for fun or enrichment and do something else for money. People who try to turn hobbies into a day job seem to get this weird idea that they're somehow critical to the hobby when in fact they're just hyper focused on getting attention and crowding out actually sincere people so they can sell stuff.

e.g. this thread. Here you have people making software for themselves to host their own videos without being beholden to the likes of Google. Absolutely nothing to do with OP. So why is OP criticising them? Where in the README does this free software project discuss monetization (other than mentioning it's ad-free)? Why is the topic even slightly germane?


Can you imagine having a hobby and not trying to monetize it? I really think we've completely lost the plot.

If it's tricky for people in software engineering (those still holding a job continue to have big salaries compared to most other industries) to have hobbies they are willing to pay for themselves, it's probably them finding excuses instead or living beyond their means.

Nope, there are still people doing this stuff to share what they are excited about, and they will continue to be people like that.

Economy has nothing to do with this — as mentioned, a lot of this comes out of university students and low rung staff, and they were never best paid.


You can resell game key cards, at least? They seem better than digital copies to me. And first party games are still on cartridge for the most part.

> You can resell game key cards, at least?

Sure, unless the game is no longer available for download, in which case the key card is a worthless piece of plastic to anyone who hasn’t downloaded it previously. And you still have to contend with all the other downsides of downloadable games including managing the free space on your device.

At this point I don’t trust any console manufacturer to pinky promise that downloads will always be available, so I will not buy anything but a proper physical copy.


People have convinced themselves that game key cards are terrible, when they're the exact same thing as the old style of cartridges, with the only difference that you don't have the 1.0 on it.

People are convinced that game key cards will stop working at some point, when it's the reverse that will happen; your card will be fine, but won't work on a Switch 2, only a future console.

Nintendo will close access to their stores to old consoles way before they break access with their cards.


> People have convinced themselves that game key cards are terrible, when they're the exact same thing as the old style of cartridges, with the only difference that you don't have the 1.0 on it.

I guess this statement is correct, but my point is that the most important thing to me is that I have the game on the cartridge.


Does the switch's "Match Version with Local Users" feature on the software update menu work for this, or is an internet connection strictly required the first time you insert a key card?

That's only for updates. The initial install must come from the eShop. That's not different for game key cards. When you first put a card in, you need to download the game from eShop. No exceptions.

The next console is going to cost at least 1000 dollars, right? There's simply no way to sell hardware at 300 million units now. So I think their strategy is to abandon the mass market and sell to price unconscious consumers who will also pay more for games.

But what's the point of even releasing the next console? The current console generation has barely gotten started, and developers have barely taken advantage of the new hardware.

Maybe they need to look at releasing a cheaper console and making more quality games instead of constantly pushing so hard on graphics. Graphics help sales to an extent, but it's clearly not the whole story, given the popularity of the Wii or Switch. I think the people in charge no longer understand gaming, and are really struggling to produce games that will draw in large crowds again.

> So I think their strategy is to abandon the mass market and sell to price unconscious consumers who will also pay more for games.

Kinda seems like it. I'm curious to see what happens with that, because even people who so far have been willing to pay more will stop being customers if they can't produce an experience that's worth paying for. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the first-party PlayStation games all feel very samey to me.


For the ps6, they were already done with design and they'd need to let that go to waste to not put it out. I doubt it'll have many exclusives though - it's probably a ps5 pro pro thing.

But I'm also not sure they can sell a cheaper console. PS5 prices just rose and they'll rise again next year - so that level is already going to cost 800 dollars to consumers. You can't really sell hardware to anyone until ram prices come down it seems.

They could release a ps4 level console but I'm not sure it would be that cheap to source parts for... There are rumors of a handheld so that might be cheaper.

Basically console gaming is about to get impractical and they'll try and find a path to stay alive. That's my read.


What else tracks inflation like that? Do movies?

Movie tickets are now easily $25 a seat.

If the AI tools are that effective, the maintainers can just use them themselves? That way they would have the full oversight on how it's done.

PRs with just the results and final code doesn't seem better even if we assume ai coding will be much faster.


Integrating AI-assisted PRs into an existing team is a skillset all in itself.

The team is taking a pretty strong stance against external AI-assisted PRs, which makes you think they'd take a weak stance against internal AI-assisted PRs? It's hard to draw the exact line, but maybe?

For our team, the outcome is the PR, and you have to set up _a lot of testing infrastructure_ to prevent regressions. It's a skillset like any other.

It would be consistent with their actions that my belief is they are slow to adopt workflows that will accelerate them. Thus velocity will decrease.


> Integrating AI-assisted PRs into an existing team is a skillset all in itself.

What exactly is this skillset? Why should AI created PR's be any different from other PRs?

To me this seems like a very sensible move.. they don't want to deal with bad code from uninvested contributors. I can't possibly see how that would harm them. If they want to use AI themselves, given their track record I trust they would do it tastefully.


Quite simply, volume. Detailed human review is a serious bottleneck on code merging. Skillset includes how to make sure you can get quality code at speed without 100% in-depth human review. I wouldn't recommend merges without human eyes, but there is a spectrum of depth in review.

but their stated reasoning is that they do open PRs to train up new contributors and eventually get them into the community where they'll be more trusted. That doesn't suggest a hardline stance against the tools to me necessarily at least.

On one hand, you could be right! I am making inferences on low data, judging the Godot team based on some of their _strong_ design choices. I would have a better argument if I spent the time tracking the Github issues that seemed quite wild that we encountered while building in Godot. Top of mind (low evidence, sorry) GDScript as a base scripting language (later reversed by C#), refusal to add async/await for GDScript, others that have escaped me.

What I am saying is squishy conjecture.

On the other hand, they're training new contributors to make internal AI-assisted PRs by requiring them to make non-assisted PRs? That sounds unlikely but I suppose possible.


Any resources for getting better at that skillset (high-velocity but largely stable ai-enhanced coding, if I understand you correctly)? I’m always pretty skeptical of these claims but I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong

https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

there's a few elsewhere in the comments here but I'm not sure how comprehensive any are


If you want to increase endurance for running I think the general suggestion is to hit the track and do running? Get your mile time down or similar.

In my personal experience I've found strength training better for losing weight than just cardio but any activity will help a bit. You'll really need to adjust your diet in some way for it though, or at least start counting and keep your calories steady as you do more activity. Trying to outburn what you eat takes like an hour of exercise a day otherwise, it's tough.


Strength training has more of a positive effect on body composition.

The problem with doing a lot of cardio is that you need muscle to burn calories (especially so without injury and as you get older), and too much medium intensity cardio will start to chew up lean mass.

No harm in doing a bit of both though, especially if your goal is fitness/maintenance rather than maximum strength or a particular look.


I think it's a bit of an exaggeration. There's an interference effect but there's people who compete in natural bodybuilding that run marathons as well.

Absolutely, if you do strength/resistance work that'll counteract the tendency of long cardio to burn muscle.

My point is just that if you /only/ do long cardio, it'll reduce the mass of muscle that you need both to burn calories and remain uninjured. Good to mix it up a bit.


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

Search: