Other people apparently don't have this feeling at all. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised by this, but I've definitely been caught off guard by it.

You put in all your bookmarks (also pdfs or epubs) and it puts them in a queue and tracks your progress. Read for as long as you want to and if you get bored with an article you just move on to the next one. Supports highlights and annotations as well as creating spaced repetition cards out of those annotations.

Really reduces the friction for me to start reading and it has made a noticeable difference to my media consumption throughout last year.

Started out as an exploration into the incremental reading concept, but it's become my primary interface for reading and I use it every day.

I haven't really talked about this to anyone yet, but it's getting to a point where it's polished enough for others to use.

It's currently completely free and you can try it without entering your email.

https://www.increader.com/

I guess it's not talked about as much because a lot fewer people have access to it, but after spending a bunch of time with gemini 3 and opus 4.5 I don't feel that openai has lost the lead at all. The benchmarks tell a different story, but for my real world use cases codex and gpt pro are still ahead. Better at sticking to my intent and fewer mistakes overall. It's slow, yes. But I can't write requirements as quickly as opus can misunderstand them anyway.

What happened at meta is ludicrous, but labs are clearly willing to pay top-dollar for actual research talent, presumably because they feel like it's still a bottleneck.

I guess I don't actually have an issue with this research paper existing, but I do have an issue with its clickbait-y title that gets it a bunch of attention, even though the actual research is really not that interesting.

Maybe I'm just super out of touch on how people use their cars, but my cars infotainment system has not made its manufacturer any additional money as far as I can tell.

I don't know who thought this was a good user experience, because it's one of the most frustrating features I've ever had to deal with. I'm german, but almost all of the things I watch are in english. So usually I will just ignore recommendations with german titles. Except I can't do that anymore, because there's no guarantee that youtube didn't randomly decide to translate the title of an english video into german. And recently, they've added auto-translated audio, which is even worse, because now I'm opening an english video and a terrible robotic german voice is talking to me and I manually need to switch to the original source.

It's also not consistent behavior. It's not like all videos on the front page are looking like they're in german. It's just some of them and afaik there's no way to tell.

And you genuinely can't turn it off completely. Incredibly frustrating and I'm just puzzled by the thought-process that lead to this decision. This would be a pretty cool feature if it was consistently applied and freely configurable.

But having read through most of the objections I still find myself enticed by this. If I mentally place myself in this position I think I could quite happily live a few decades without talking to anyone for weeks or even months at a time. I'd still have my pets to give me companionship. Load my kindle up with a thousand books I want to read and just work my way through it. Pick up writing as a hobby and spend the rest of the time working at a gas station and fixing up the house and/or grow some food to offset the reduced income.

Healthcare is an issue. Doesn't seem like a viable place to grow old. Once you become too frail for physical work it's probably just time to die, which isn't great.

Also, if EvilCorp is worth $10, I could just buy it and stop all the EvilActions.

As far as I understand hardcover was really created because goodreads discontinued their api and the team at hardcover saw how many people relied on it for a myriad of different niche projects.

If hardcover was just a replacement for the goodreads platform, then I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's there for the api, with the platform around it intended as a way to ensure free access of the api for everyone. And from that pov choosing GraphQL makes a lot of sense imo. You can't anticipate all the cool and different things people might want to do with it, so they chose the most flexible api spec they could.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if a complete rails rewrite was the right choice. The App was slow and sluggish beforehand, with frequent ui glitches and it still has those same issues. Their dev blog claims significant performance increases, but as a user I haven't noticed a big difference. Sticking with next.js, but moving to a selfhosted instance and then iteratively working on performance improvements would've been (imho) the better way forward. I see no reason why next.js somehow fundamentally couldn't do what they're trying to do, but rails can. Especially with just 30k users (which tbc is a great achievement, just not impressive from a technical standpoint).

This talk isn't that. There are no substantive arguments for why we should embrace this future and his representation of the opposite side isn't in good faith either, instead he chose to present straw-man versions of them.

He concludes with "A successful succession offers [...] the best hope for a long-term future for humanity. How this can possibly be true when ai succession necessarily includes replacement eludes me. He does mention transhumanism on a slide, but it seems extremely unlikely that he's actually talking about that and the whole succession spiel is just unfortunate wording.