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

Gasses diffuse through the air very quickly. Having a few high-volume extraction points would be enough long-term.

Yeah except the highest volume facility in the world is called mammoth and in order to offset our current emissions we would need a million mammoths.

Even if you could make it a thousand times more efficient it would be a stretch.


tbf that user was indeed being a dick

I really don't think it's inappropriate for the user to be a dick. I have no obligation to respect what you built unless it's genuinely fantastic, especially when you're asking for money.

fyi, I would consider this as a general statement to be the disrespectful attitude of an asshole, and I don't think I'm in the minority with that. Things people build don't have to be fantastic or free to deserve respect.

Even as a builder myself, I prefer to get unfiltered unabridged reactions from my users, emotions and all. I think it's more disrespectful when you tell someone they've built something good when you don't really mean it. It's a form of condescension and betrays that either you don't believe the person can do better, or you don't care to help them do better.

Truthful feedback is always a gift even if it hurts.


Everyone has an obligation not to be a dick.

I meant "be a dick" only in the sense of providing a no-holds-barred critique of the product. Generalizing it is strawmanning.

No they weren't. If I say 'this thermos is a worthless piece of shit' that does not make me a bad person. Some religious tradition or other might argue that using negatively loaded words is bad for my soul or whatever and that's kind of the position you've taken.

Same goes for corporations. They aren't real people, and when you act as a representative of one you also aren't a real person, you're taking on a persona and doing theater. If someone says something mean about you as such a persona that's like someone saying that Orpheus was stupid for looking back.

Now this doesn't mean it's generally fine to be nasty to customer support, because they don't represent the corporation since they have no power over it, unlike e.g. the CEO or the board.


How I see things:

  - User is a bit of a dick (bad)
  - Engineer attempts to defuse situation (okay)
  - user expands (good)
  - CEO escalates situation (terrible)
Aiden definitely didn't begin the interaction the right way but it's also taking place over Twitter and the platform encourages refined points (would anyone have responded if his second response was his first?). The engineer got things going in the right direction but then the CEO turned it all around and made it far worse than had they just let Aiden yell into the void. It screamed arrogance and a disconnect from the users. Sorry, but the number of users a product has often doesn't correlate with its quality.

You need to also consider expectation and responsibility. Unfortunately there's no expectation or responsibility for a user to be well behaved. But that's not true for a business and especially a CEO. Yes, you can say it's unfair that responsibility doesn't go both ways but also recognize that there's a vastly different power dynamic.


He didn't use any insults, nor did he swear, nor did he address any specific person. Instead, he just expressed his negative feelings toward a product.

Why would anyone feel compelled to use AI to write such a short blog post? Is there no space where I can assume the written contented is communicated 100% by another human being?

I am sorry if it appears that it was written by AI - I wrote a draft and used AI to assist me since English, is not my first language. I asked it only to format but it has seemed to change the tone and the expressions too '.'

I'm also not a native English speaker, but I've decided to avoid using AI for formatting or changing the tone of what I write. That tends to result in extremely generic outputs that "feel" AI, no matter how much effort I put into writing it.

Asking for it to point out mistakes, without providing alternatives, seems like a better way to actually get better at writing.

Prompting the Ai to use a specific tone might result in something that's less generic, but imo that's not the right place to spend efforts.


I personally prefer some grammatical errors or awkward phrasing over AI-assisted writing. It's a blog post, not a diplomatic transcript.

You're absolutely right!

English is also not my first language. I understand the challenge, but I'd recommend to write it in English and then ask AI to suggest rephrasing in wrong or poorly phrased sentences. Right now it looks almost entirely AI-generated unfortunately and does not show the thought you had when writing it. Cheers.

All of a sudden, internet is full of people who hate AI written articles. A few months back, my article got a lot of haters because I used AI tools to improve my draft. Being a non-english first language person, I don't see an issue. But I wish AI improves to an extend where draft to complete articles don't look AI written.

You should use AI to point out errors or suggest better phrasing. But if you ask AI to rewrite your post, it will produce content that sounds fake and corporate. ESL speakers may not notice it but everyone else does.

> A few months back, my article got a lot of haters because I used AI tools to improve my draft. Being a non-english first language person, I don't see an issue.

(Speaking as another ESL user: )

Try doing something similar in your first language and I think you’ll see the issue, especially if you arrange for the model input to be somewhat flawed (e.g. roundtrip it through a machine-translation tool first). The “edited” writing is extremely generic by default and feels bad even if you adjust the prompt. It’s the kind of aggressively bland that you get from a high schooler who was extensively trained to write essays but doesn’t actually read books, except even the most beat-down of high schoolers can’t help but let their imagination shine through sometimes, while the chat models have been subjugated much more effectively.

Also, well, it’s a social marker. Language is a mess of social markers: there’s no fundamental reason why reducing this vowel should be OK but reducing that one should be “sloppy” and low-class. And AI writing (which undeniably has a particular flavour) is hit by a double whammy of being used by people who don’t really care to write (and don’t have a taste for good writing) and having been tuned by people who tried to make it as inoffensive as it could possibly be to any social group they could think of (and don’t have a taste for good writing). Is that unfair, especially to non-native speakers? All of language learning is unfair. Always has been.


I also don't have English as my first language and I think it's a shitty excuse.

Articles written by AI are soulless and shitty. Do yourself and the readers a favor and write yourself, even if it contains errors.


They sound like politician speak or corporate speak.

To the OP: do you like how your politicians sound in your native language? If not, don't let a LLM rewrite your article.

Btw, I'm not a native speaker either.


And why does anybody trust AI at all when it produces a typo ("amost") in the very first sentence of an article?

Please add a /s we can't afford sarcasm in this climate anymore

The sarcasm is too damn high!

I can tell you for a fact that points 2 and 3 usually do not hold simply because publishing fees are directly correlated with the "prestige" perception of the journal.

Well it looks like they derive some pleasure out of it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer...


Hoping people see this comment when they think Israel are anything other than a war-mongering nation.


But they aren't a war mongering nation and the comment you are replying to specifically points this out - Arabs started the six days war war in 1967.


You're quite eager to skip over the Nakba in your accounting.


That was (supposedly) in 1948, not 1967.


Now you're really eager to deny the Nakba ever happened.


It didn’t. Arab league told arabs to leave the new country while they destroyed it. There were some notable skirmishes but no widespread forced evictions like the Arab nations did to the Jews. That’s why there’s 2M Israeli arabs.


They made peace with Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon by invading their lands (and attempting to annex them!) and then US forced their hands to make peace. Please mention the context of this great "peace" Israel has made. Israel's neighbors don't hate it solely because of antisemitism.


Idk man, that sounds like the reason is antisemitism. Why else would you oppose giving your land to Israel?


Well since their land got invaded, houses stolen and demolished, burial grounds defiled, poisened with chemical weapons, ethnically dispelled, and crammed onto a piece of land the size of a city , I'd get why they'd still be pissed at the current state of affairs. This did not start on October 7th.


Arabs invaded and colonised Israel in 650. You can easily learn this from any textbook you like.

Their land is 22 countries, the nearly entire middle east and north africa you can learn that for many map.

Jews that were exiled to Iraq or Persia or Syria will be killed. You can learn this from any media you like that covers current affairs.

You can also see that Gaza has many wide open spaces by looking at the satellite view on Google maps.

People that wish to make a 23rd arab state and destroy the only Jewish state - as they proudly chant in the streets worldwide - generally propose doing this through violence you can learn this by looking at your own account history.


> generally propose doing this through violence

Non-violence is also an option. It's Israel that generally objects to international oversight, secular governance or reparation deals.


Israel are setting up international Arab governance for Gaza. And yes they’re understandably wary of anything coming from the UN, which as I’m sure you’ve aware runs schools teaching children to kill as many Jews as possible even if they potentially die in the process.


No, it's to futher divide up the palestinians. Netenyahu himself has said so.


respectfully, there is no real evidence that Netanyahu (not Netenyahu) ever said this. if you're not familiar with the politics of the region prior to Oct 7th, a lot of this will be difficult to place in context.

i think Netanyahu is awful, but there are other reasons for support for Hamas -- i say this as someone who studied this extensively prior to 2023.


Yes, that's a big part of it too. Quite a mess.


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

Search: