<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: ansgar77</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ansgar77</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:17:37 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=ansgar77" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ansgar77 in "Do we just want slaves?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think that the title is badly worded but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that looking at it from a different perspective, AI is not even a slave. We can look at it more like outsourcing work. I pay for it after all to have something done that I wouldn't want to do myself.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 06:59:23 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48988987</link><dc:creator>ansgar77</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48988987</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48988987</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ansgar77 in "Who's afraid of Chinese models?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Regarding point 2, I don't trust my data being safe running inference on model creators api, but neither do I trust US providers. Both use it for their own benefit, the only difference is the country of origin. The US has a lot more legal safeguards for this but I don't trust they don't do it regardless.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 06:42:07 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48988875</link><dc:creator>ansgar77</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48988875</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48988875</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ansgar77 in "The git history command"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think that the path that was taken should include mistakes. It's natural that code at some point would contain bugs and mistakes. If anything, your approach would encourage to squash those commits into one just to make it being review-worthy, but that misses the point then.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 09:09:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48904012</link><dc:creator>ansgar77</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48904012</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48904012</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ansgar77 in "Captcha proves you're human. HATCHA proves you're not"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I'm honestly not sure if that's satire or not. Like I feel this wouldn't work, right? Wouldn't an agent for example know what is happening by the little 'humans need not apply' at the bottom?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:29:10 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48685866</link><dc:creator>ansgar77</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48685866</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48685866</guid></item></channel></rss>