Psychologically, people understand charging a battery to "125%" (or whatever) a lot better: Do it when you really need to but if you do it all the time it wears down the battery a lot faster.

I'm totally in the same boat; I've not bought several Ubisoft-games I was interested in playing because their launcher is such a cancer (if anyone from Ubisoft is on HN: What on earth are you guys smoking?).

I'm too lazy to bother with pirating games these days (I have more games than time to play them anyway), but younger me would've certainly went to the high seas to circumvent their ridiculous insult of a game launcher.

As a matter of fact, in case the nostalgia itch really does hit, Steam actually enables a relatively easy 're-release' of old games that many publishers started doing - often with no further addition except the promise that it'll run on modern hardware/OS hassle-free.

I've re-bought games I've played in the 90s/2000s on Steam even though I already owned them and probably still have the CD lying around somewhere, but I just can't be arsed to go through the troubles of installing from them. Pay a few bucks, click a button and I'm up and running.

It's certainly not a primary purchase decision factor but I've not bought games because they did not come with steam achievements.

Specifically in the case of Roomba complacency certainly played a role. I have one of their robots for several years already, and while it mostly works fine for my usecases their app is a complete mess. Sometimes the roomba has an issue and aborts a run but there's zero to no detail visible in the app as to why that happened. I seem to be unable to look at old runs, see statistics over time, basically anything that might be useful other than the bog-standard basics, and even those are lacklustre at best.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually reverse-engineered their APIs and made a better app on top of them; the app is comically bad with little to no improvement since I've started using the product.

Heck, I've not bought games because they were not on Steam or required another launcher. Ubisoft and Rockstar are so bad that I held off on buying some games I really wanted to play; they're just that awful. EA's Origin was also pretty bad last time I checked.

I guess it's an actually hard problem to make a somewhat decent launcher in big companies with too many PMs playing turfwars, but still, almost everyone except Valve is shitting the bed so hard that as a consumer I'd happily pay quite the markup if it would allow me to avoid other launchers. They're that bad.

Time to rewatch "Vice"; Bale is incredible.

I think what OP meant is that producing all this fancy advanced tech just to play the financial game isn't all that much benefit for society.

And when looking at societal development in the last couple of decades with the increasing gap in distribution of wealth, social mobility and overall life expectancy declining and other such metrics, I think it's a valid standpoint that maybe, the collective smarts of our society could be allocated a bit better than putting them into companies like Jane Street; as impressive as their work is.

The endless game of catching people's attention. Focus on actual value creation? Nah, let's just mind-hack everyone into buying the product.

It works, it's obviously a game worth billions, but I find it deeply depressing.

I have such a hard time understanding how such statements can find an accepting audience in this day and age; in Israel of all places.

Replace "Israeli stand-up comedian" with "some Nazi propagandist in the 30s/40s" and "Gazans" with "Jews", and I'm sure it would be a perfectly accurate historical quote.

JS certainly does have plenty of wtfs but honestly, when sticking to somewhat modern JS, it's not so bad anymore these days. Function-scoping-shenanigans can mostly be circumvented by simply sticking to const/let, use a 3rd-party-library like date-fns instead of the dumpsterfire that is native Date and you're almost there - throw typescript into the mix and I have a very hard time imagining running into the meme-worthy JS-warts on a daily basis.

Then maybe that business isn't adding all that much value to society to begin with and it's just not that much of a loss if it goes away.

If a company cannot survive without shoving their product into the view of eyeballs appealing to our most basic monkey brain instincts, it's maybe just better if it dies.

That being said, I'm fully understanding of the reasons for the somewhat odd versioning given your special situation, but still, I'd wish there would be a 4.0.0-package for folks like us who simply don't need to worry or bother about zod-version-clashes in transitive dependencies bacause those don't exist (or at least I think so; npm ls zod only returns our own dependency of zod). If I understood correctly, we'll need to adapt the import to "zod/v4", which will be an incredibly noisy change and will probably cause quite a few headaches when IDEs auto-import from 'zod' and such, which we then need to catch with linting-rules.

But that's probably a small gripe for a what sounds overall like a very promising upgrade - many thanks for your work once again!

I still use Duolingo almost daily to have some continuous language exposure, for which I still find it useful (especially as the gamification helps with staying engaged). It has its limitations but it does help me. Just to give a bit of a counterpoint; I find your statement a bit overly broad.

The world would be better off if many a leader these days, religious or otherwise, would be a bit more like him.

When I was in the early teens (so quite a bit older than the kid in your case), I got my hands on a book about set theory, and it absolutely blew my mind. The concept of countability, axiomatic definition of functions and so on really gave me a completely different perception of math. Up until then, math seemed to be something that follows nature, so to speak, three plus two makes five because if I have three eggs and two eggs its five eggs or whatever primary school taught me. I remember back then that I'd wish that some teacher would have made me aware earlier of a more formal, axiomatic approach to math and all that, that there is a more fundamental basis to it than "that's just what it is". It really furthered my interest in math, and while I ultimately eventually moved over to CS, it definitely had quite a fundamental impact on me back then.

The particular book I've read was in German (I still have it) and unlikely to be ideal for a 5 year old; just wanted to give this little personal anecdote somewhat related to your question.

Interesting, I perceive it exactly the other way around. I'm surprised this thread is as high up as it is, usually as per my perception, anti-advertisement sentiment gets shot down hard, presumably because a large part of the HN-crowd works for companies like google or facebook which rely on ads as a business model, or start-ups whose products are only used because users were shown ads for them.

My take: The human mind is hackable; it's just too easy and efficient to appeal to our emotions and most basic instincts. And while it was mostly fine to ignore it while it was "only" increasing consumerism, we currently see what happens when the same is applied to elections, with predictably terrible outcomes.

Your stance is still the old HN stance; the market actually works, any change that would impact the status quo is neither welcome nor needed, etc. etc. - this was the gospel for at least a decade, but we're finally awakening to the fact that hey, maybe this is actually bad, even if it made loads of money for many of us. Maybe it led us to the awful situation we're currently in, with big, ad-based monopolies, an absolute clownshow in the highest of offices and CEOs of said monopolies playing the lackeys.

Most big social developments in human history were non-serious and silly to many people before they actually happened.