Hacker News: joshuamorton

New comment by joshuamorton in "The Speed of Prototyping in the Age of AI"

joshuamorton — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 15:49:12 +0000

This, does exist though: https://share.google/i89jxAZzBzJJBpOyR. Like I know someone who answers phones are a salon and gets annoyed when people use this thing.

New comment by joshuamorton in "The Speed of Prototyping in the Age of AI"

joshuamorton — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 05:11:18 +0000

> I gave the example of Apple and Google for a good reason. Because these big companies are selling products that don't even exist yet.

I guess I'm curious what you mean by this, I don't particularly see either of those companies doing this, certainly not in the way this article describes, and not really in any way that's impacted substantially by AI.

What "product that doesn't exist" is Apple selling? Google? Who is paying for it?

New comment by joshuamorton in "Googlebook"

joshuamorton — Tue, 19 May 2026 18:26:04 +0000

> They'll replace the battery only "in eligible locations and while battery supplies last.

And if you aren't in an eligible location they'll pay you cash or give you a discount on a new phone. I'm really unclear what seems so terrible here.

New comment by joshuamorton in "A History of IDEs at Google"

joshuamorton — Wed, 13 May 2026 17:37:31 +0000

I do most of my development on a MacBook air and a Chromebook. The ~only thing I do from my local machine is ssh into a beefy workstation and use chrome.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Googlebook"

joshuamorton — Tue, 12 May 2026 20:53:40 +0000

I mean I guess anything is possible, but the Pixel 6 and 7 also are receiving 5+ years of updates, and those sure seem real so far.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Googlebook"

joshuamorton — Tue, 12 May 2026 20:04:49 +0000

Yes, they've since more than doubled the support lifetimes to seven years.

New comment by joshuamorton in "The map that keeps Burning Man honest"

joshuamorton — Fri, 08 May 2026 00:27:08 +0000

> aren't motivated to do crime due to suffering

Good thing I never said that!

> Oh, and the only solution is more welfare

Nor that!

I said that for many people crime is a rational approach to more prosperity. That doesn't mean folks are near starvation and have no other choices, it just means that criminal options may be more appealing than other ones. If you create accessible, non criminal pathways to prosperity, crime decreases..if you remove them, it goes up.

New comment by joshuamorton in "The map that keeps Burning Man honest"

joshuamorton — Thu, 07 May 2026 21:37:59 +0000

There is a reason that crime goes up a ton when existing tools for survival disappear (e.g. disaster scenarios). When people have paths to prosperity, the need to do crime goes down. When the marginal value of crime is low, people don't do it. You can get there with draconian punishments, but you can also get there with, like, a strong social safety net and general prosperity.

While not the only reason, one reason that my coworkers won't steal my wallet if I leave it somewhere is that the $20 is mostly irrelevant to them given the general level of prosperity at my office.

New comment by joshuamorton in "The map that keeps Burning Man honest"

joshuamorton — Thu, 07 May 2026 17:37:19 +0000

While it doesn't explain 100% of crime, this is just true. You change people's circumstances such that crime isn't rational, and they're less likely to do it.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI"

joshuamorton — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:28:29 +0000

I want to be clear, I agree. I have no objection to unique government contracts. I'm specifically curious about GPs position that a government contractor should be (ethically?) bound from putting contractual obligations on government use of their service.

Like the various ai providers limit lawful use like creating AI pornography. I think it would be reasonable to keep a contractual restriction against that even when working with the government.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Google and Pentagon reportedly agree on deal for 'any lawful' use of AI"

joshuamorton — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:20:00 +0000

> they shouldn't have some sneaky way to exert control over decision making using their products.

why not, many companies have all sorts of rules you agree to when using their products, including many legal ("lawful") things. Are you saying that the government as a client should be unbound by contractual obligations that apply to other clients?

New comment by joshuamorton in "What is jj and why should I care?"

joshuamorton — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:55:48 +0000

I think it's because it's easy to make annoying mistakes (still easy to fix with undo) with edit. And it gains relatively little over new+squash. Edit is a useful power-feature, but I think for a novice, "never use it, only use the more well understood workflow of new+squash" is a good heuristic.

New comment by joshuamorton in "//go:fix inline and the source-level inliner"

joshuamorton — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:52:20 +0000

This also does not change th code. It is an advertisement to a linter-loke tool to take some action on the source code. Its most similar to linter directives which usually are comments.

New comment by joshuamorton in "//go:fix inline and the source-level inliner"

joshuamorton — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:20:34 +0000

> The reason it feels like a kludge is that "comments" are normally understood to be non-impactful. Is a source transformation that removes all comments valid? If comments have no impact per the spec, yes. But that's not the case here.

This is not inlining in the compiler. It's a directive to a source transformation (refactoring) tool. So yes, this has no impact on the code. It will do things if you run `go fix` on your codebase, otherwise it won't.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional"

joshuamorton — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 20:02:20 +0000

And in fact the law at issue doesn't even assign points.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional"

joshuamorton — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 20:01:47 +0000

Having read the order, it doesn't really justify the central claim, that these are criminal, and in my opinion a lot of the context cuts against that (the liability being only a fine and some other things).

New comment by joshuamorton in "Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional"

joshuamorton — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:32:13 +0000

Can someone link the order, I've searched heavily for it and it's not linked by an of the articles or findable easily.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional"

joshuamorton — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:30:32 +0000

The mentioned fines are $1-200, which is in the same range as parking tickets.

I think the best argument is that license points are criminal in nature, but I don't really buy that.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional"

joshuamorton — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 03:48:41 +0000

Everything you've said applies to parking tickets too. You can't prove that the owner parked the vehicle.

Tha owner is ultimately civily liable if the vehicle is parked in a way that it shouldn't be. Extending that same civil liability to the active operation, as opposed to only the consequences of active operation, seems perfectly reasonable.

New comment by joshuamorton in "Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional"

joshuamorton — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 03:11:40 +0000

> In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty

I think there are circumstances where this is true, but I don't think it's true in the general sense. And I really don't think red light cameras, which are incredible for public safety and a really fair enforcement tool, are a good example of a civil rights violation.