Like, handwriting doesn't do a thing for me. It doesn't help me learn at all.

I can't help but wonder if there's some advantage that I'm missing?

But on the other hand, I don't seem to have any problems paying attention or learning. So I'm still just so confused as to how it helps. Like, is my brain already doing the things that some other people need handwriting for? Or is it not, but handwriting doesn't do those things either?

I think I'm extra-baffled because I can't even imagine how it could help. Like, I can't think of any analogy to anything else that would help me understand. I already understand the things and listen to and see, I don't have any issues with concentration or anything... so what does the handwriting add?

I see a lot of people say that it forces you to think more deeply about the material, but I'm kind of always on "maximum thinking mode" already.

I genuinely do not understand how people find it helps them to handwrite notes in a lecture. If I type on my laptop, I can do that "mindlessly", which is beneficial because then I have enough of my brain free that I can also understand what the lecturer is saying. Ask a question if I have one, etc.

If I'm hand-writing notes in a notebook, I can't do any of that. I'm so focused on trying to get the stuff down that it's using a lot of my brain that I'd really rather be using to actually think more deeply about what is being said.

I'm genuinely so baffled by people who find that hand-writing notes helps them understand the material better. I used to assume they were terrible typists, but I don't think it's that.

But for example, with your comment, you say that when typing notes, you can transcribe word-for-word without knowing or thinking. But... why not just actually pay attention? Isn't that the whole point? Why do you need slower handwriting to force you to actually pay attention? That's what confuses me so much. I pay attention by default. Writing notes by hand takes away from my attention, because I have to give attention to that.

It's only when I squint hard that I can see "HAPPY HUMAN".

You must not be using Spotify the way I do.

I access my friends' playlists and they access mine. Spotify lets you do exactly what you're describing, only faster and easier.

For a lot of people, they use Spotify specifically because of the network effects, because that's where people can find their playlists. Because everyone's culturally bought-in to the idea that Spotify is where you share that.

> I make an effort to use Spotify to find and listen to albums, but it wasn’t built for this

It literally was built for this. If you aren't using shared playlists, then you have only yourself to blame. Not Spotify.

This is measuring change in degrees from a baseline.

Then, the increase from 1.5° to 2° looks much, much larger than the increase from 0° to 0.5°.

So it's misleading in terms of making recent warming seem even worse than it is. Now, of course, you might argue that is justified in spirit because the negative consequences from warming grow faster than linear... but that doesn't make it any less misleading in terms of the temperature change it is communicating.

Neither the title nor page says anything about a "free lifetime warranty", as the HN title currently claims.

And as far as I can tell, it does not have a lifetime warranty. That seems to be a claim made on some social media posts, but nothing from IKEA corroborates that, either on the product page or warranties page. Maybe your local IKEA might replace one for you, but I assume that would be manager discretion.

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/frakta-shopping-bag-large-blue-...

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/customer-service/returns-claims/g...

Yes, this is a feature not a bug. Then, code review ensures that the actual code makes the requisite technical decisions in a desirable way. This is much faster.

> Generating code with AI is rolling the dice every time said generation is done. Proper implementation happens because with making decisions and going down a path, backtracking if necessary when it's no longer working. Going with AI is breaking down that continuity because they restart from scratch everytime.

False. You only do the initial code generation an initial time, and then update the spec to specify (at a high level, ideally) the constraints that are missing. But then you have the AI modify the existing code to meet the new spec, not start from scratch. AI does not "restart from scratch everytime", it takes an updated spec plus existing code and updates the code to match the updated spec.

It's still "making decisions and going down a path," which you call proper implementation. That's the whole point.

The subject of this entire post is development with agents. Writing specs in English is how you do that. If you don't like it, then this is probably not the right article for you to be commenting on.

This is about ensuring that when AI's make future changes, they aren't just looking at the existing code and making assumptions about intent. They should always be pulling the specs to ensure that changes maintain compatibility with the specified intents.

> Otherwise you'll accumulate specs that are right when they ship, wrong in subtle ways 3 months in, and wrong in glaring ways 6 months in. AI doesn't change this dynamic, it amplifies it.

Not if the changes you're making are always to the specs, as opposed to the code. The whole point here is that you don't change the code, you change the specs, then approve the code that the LLM changes as a result. This way the spec should never diverge from the code.

AI absolutely changes the dynamic so that code doesn't converge from the spec. That's the whole point, and the whole point of committing the specs like code.

Automating testing is great too, of course, but that's not the full picture. It ensures formal compliance, but doesn't encapsulate anything about the spirit or purpose of why the design in a certain way. Good specs do. The purpose/motivation sections and engineering guidelines are some of the most important for an LLM. Which is what helps the LLM figure out how to then best modify the existing code when features need to be changed or added.

I really disliked previously, when icon prominence could be wildly different because one icon takes up the full area with a big square, while another is a circle that necessarily has a significantly smaller area within the same extent. Icons from Apple were all nicely balanced in size, but third-party apps could be anything.

Giving equal visual weight to each icon is an improvement. iOS was a step forward in this direction, and now they finally brought the same standard to Mac.

Squircles aren't ugly, they're functional. "Shape" hasn't disappeared as a distinct visual cue, as the area within the squircle is made of, well... different shapes.

And let's not forget the fact that Macs still effectively use icon masks. A smaller icon is harder to click, because clicking on a transparent area... doesn't click at all. I remember icons like a skinny letter "S" that you had to click just right or you couldn't at all.

It's one of those things I've been wanting for a decade now, sounds like it's been around for about a year and a half.

Man, this is the kind of stuff I come to HN for.

EDIT: Ugh! I have an iPhone, and FUTO is Android-only, and ClearFlow is only available in the Android Gboard, not the iOS Gboard. :(

Except for the things that you get from sunlight, not diet.

> If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.

But nobody who lives in e.g. East Africa and spends a lot of time outdoors is deficient.

So it's actually pretty reasonable to say that a modern indoor lifestyle combined with long winters would truly lead most people in those regions to being deficient.

There's nothing I personally want to bring, but these would make AMAZING gifts, cool things for your desk/bookcase, etc.

There have got to be so many interesting, educational, and cultural objects you could print like this, and the fact you can "blow up" an object like a insect is even cooler.

Depending on the price, this feels like something that could take off in a big way.

So for the longest time, I've wanted a new keyboard layout specifically designed for swiping. In the same way that Dvorak was optimized for ergonomically typing English words, I want a keyboard layout designed to minimize word overlap/ambiguity when swiping.

It doesn't even necessarily have to have 26 keys, e.g. maybe there could be one key overloaded for v/w/x/z (and you long-press it if you ever want to type a single letter). On the other hand, maybe there need to be separate keys for 'e' and 'ee', or a special key for "double the previous letter".

Because I love swiping, but all my problems with it come from the fact that the QWERTY layout is far from ideal for it. I am 100% willing to learn a new layout if anyone will develop an optimal one for English so that swiping has a 99.9% accuracy rate instead of what currently feels more like 90% or 95%.

> When you have something you want to do and that you feel is in scope for your position, but you want a bit of reassurance or to let the boss know what you are up to, it’s common to reach out and ask them for permission. Don’t. Don’t ask for a yes. Instead, offer a chance to say no, but with a deadline.

If something is not in scope for your responsibility, obviously you must ask for permission.

If something is in scope for your responsibility, then just do the thing.

If it's in some weird edge case where you "feel" it is "in scope for your position" but you "want a bit of reassurance", then pick a lane. Either do the thing or ask for permission. Probably default to asking for permission unless a knowledgeable colleague tells you it's your call.

But setting some kind of deadline for your manager to opt-out is extremely disrespectful. If I ever had a report try to pull a stunt like that, it would be the first thing we'd talk about in our next 1-1.

Because if you have a manager who usually responds promptly, then you can ask for permission and get a quick reply. "Asking for no" is not making it more convenient for your manager, it comes across as trying to usurp their authority. "Hey, I'm going to tell HR you gave approval for a raise unless I hear from you by noon." That's... just not how anything works.

And if you have a manager who often misses e-mails or takes forever to respond, then it comes across as trying to take advantage of that to do stuff they wouldn't approve, in a sneaky way.

This is a bad look in every possible situation. Do not do this.

Like, if you're a journalist telling a source you'll print the story unless you get a correction by a deadline, OK fine. If you're looping in a peer as a courtesy (NOT a manager), then OK. But with your manager? That's crazy.

Think an iced coffee from Dunkin Donuts or McDonald's or whatever instead.