When I designed our take on it, I was solving a problem I experienced on Craigslist. I had not seen this prior art.

I built a simple refresh for a new email address interface that people really loved to mash, and it is nearly identical to the Use Different Address link behavior on Hide My Email.

To get to my original point, if Craigslist was aware of all of these examples, they did not seem to serve as impetus to provide it, despite it being in the best interest of their users.

I would highlight again that the system described by the Rally patent, if realizable in the example services means these groups also left potentially valuable IP on the table.

As the lawsuit over Hide My Email, afaik, is serious stuff.

I appreciate folks sharing links to prior art. I have more to say, that might explain my initial comment a bit more, but have to wait on that.

I’d have presumed this would have come up in the evidence for that case but afaik it has not.

IANAL, but perhaps Craigslist’s response to our product, which included blocking its usage on the site after they implanted their version, served as a stronger example of the commercialization of the product still well ahead of the Rally Patent.

Even if you take out revenue from scams, it does not change the question of what Craigslist could or should have done regarding governance.

Craigslist adhered to basic features and community volunteers partly to avoid responsibility.

The org had no problem enforcing its moat around UGC (posts) with lawsuits but only at after extraordinary foot dragging did they implement basic advancements in the best interests of their own community.

This has resulted in untold numbers of scam victims, yes but also it allowed bad landlords, (and tenants) to carry on with no repercussions. This continues, actually.

Craigslist was a benevolent dictator. It squandered an opportunity to be a low profit leader of p2p, instead yielding it to Facebook and a variety of venture backed products.

I have first hand knowledge of Craigslist response to market competition because my cofounder on Gliph and I are the creators of the product that Craigslist privacy relay email service is based on.

This point of who actually created the concept and tech is actually being litigated right now between Apple and a patent troll over the Hide My Email feature of iCloud in Rally vs. Apple Inc.

It seems like Apple, of all companies has been about doing more with less memory.

That would seem to have helped in the % of BOM getting wrecked by the supply chain and discipline of developers in its ecosystem.

For a coding agent, for example, there is *very detailed* analysis of the turns and ranking of different portions of the conversation.

Adherence or deviation from specific rules matters. Writing quality matters. Expertise in the topic under discussion matters. Having intuition for the tone and beat of a good conversation matters.

Scoring a 15-20 turn conversation can easily take two and a half hours.

Clicking submit does not mean the author is done. Many annotations will be turned back to them by a reviewer to touch up in some way.

This work can be far more mentally taxing than programming, is measured much more by completions more of a timed exercise than SWE.

FWIW, Meta employees would probably make great coding agent conversation annotators. But it is absolutely not SWE and they won't enjoy it (for long).

People got reasonably mad at Apple’s iron fisted control of the App Store and access to its platforms.

It got to the point that there was political will to force Apple to change. (Sort of, in some circumstances)

But during the golden age of the App Store, when Angry Birds came out—-it wasn’t something people were hemming and hawing about the fairness of distribution platforms it was more like: “wow! iPhone! Check out this game! Everyone is playing this thing, Jack White is playing it. You too can have this game for a few bucks, can you believe this?”

It is only after Apple had ridden the horse a good long while and reaped what came to be outsized profits and using the thing to control competition over an extended period that something really was done about it. (Sort of)

There are many other examples of this kind of thing.

Compensated creative expression has somewhat relied on it in the form of intellectual property, which has built in albeit relatively toothless expiration.

But even IP is under greater threat than ever with gen AI. Just look at what fans are doing with the Star Wars franchise on YouTube right now.

Anyhow, I agree with the system is flawed but I mean to point out that deciding a person or company has reaped enough for their thing is something we do on a case by case basis.

It is not easy to say when to say to someone or something has been compensated “enough.”

This is US centric but a $200 Claude code and $100 codex sub is a vast, vast amount of tokens. Enough to pay for itself many times over. It provides exposure to the very edge of harnesses and experience that is being hired for.

Isn’t there an argument this is possibly the best price to available performance for frontier models? Both due to subsidies and the distance between open and accessible alternatives?

---

Can you make a version of this that is more in the style of "the way things work" the cool inventions book from the 90s with cavepeople and wooly mamoths and that illustration asthetic?

https://github.com/mohsen1/axial-flux-motor-explainer

If able, expand on the abilities of the page as requested in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48475428

---

So ya, that was a one shot to build.

Just as impressive was its ability to publish the source and get the version up on my personal site. That was also a one shot but aided by context and skills I have available for these purposes.

Published: https://banagale.com/the-way-the-motor-works/

Source: https://github.com/banagale/the-way-the-motor-works

It lacks cave people but has the woolys.

I suspect personal privacy and need to run AI workflows to handle the litany of administration tasks of a household will be what result in regular need for local AI.

Apple is already out front with this on a personal, individual level, but they are not obviously headed toward multiuser/family-level ~biz admin with a persistent server running local LLM.

The value to the investors also includes the outcome of dealflow resulting from the relationships and network built up along the way.

But I found that if the builds are out they will be played with and fall apart and eventually become loose legos and that’s all fine and good.

Loose Legos on the floor making random things is fun. But building with sets and instructions is a different skill set and is entertaining in its own right.

The newer Friends series has a short reward video at the end of some builds which sort of puts the cherry on top of the set builds.

A sign of weariness in the rapid evolution of tooling, where people got off the train a stop too early?

A confusing overloaded acronym (cli) and term (skill) lacking the marketability / easy mind share of a unique acronym?

These all fail to establish a hearty reason to be.

The walking dead are still dead.

This is the type of place one might be “waiting for the other shoe to drop.” Which carries a variety of potential meanings in this moment of AI.

Tangentially related: Mack and the boys lived in the “Palace Flophouse and Grill” in Cannery Row.

I suppose I must have looked up flophouse when reading all the Steinbeck I could get my hands on and it’s stuck w me.

It seems to, even.

Whereas if you hand a router to someone with a flush trim but in it and ask them to clean up the edge of a table they will take one look at it and nope away from that dangerous spinning thing.

If they have the mind to give it a shot and despite a quality tool and bit they bite into the table and ruin the line (or something much worse) no one will be surprised—-they have no experience or recognition of what expertise is in woodworking.

But with AI, it is much more hazy what expertise is.

The methodology for quality results is changing each week and the articulation in personal tooling involved makes it challenging to adopt another “expert”’s workflows.