This lady says you should let your children get hooked on YouTube, who knows what could happen if you don't!

Looks like biased research, fake coverage amplifies it, it's all manufacturing consent.

The “fact checkers” pretend they are objective and authoritative, but they are not, they are just one more opinion.

For the research, the four classification options are too many, it should be true, false, and maybe “can’t be determined”.

It's not only an AI company, it's the symbol of AI hype. This AI hype is significant part of the US economy, and the AI infrastructure spending basically half of its growth.

("it's not this it's that", I swear it's human generated slop)

In my own experience, newer products get more love automatically, because the testers, the devs, the team are on newer devices. Perf regressions are also harder to catch than simpler bugs and sometimes require extended usage to notice smaller perf degradation, and devs and QA do not really test like that (often enough).

The way I see it, older products will naturally decline with updates, as they are less of a focus while validating a new release. Sure, they get some "freebie" improvements, but I'm guessing the accidental "decay" outweighs any improvements.

I'm not saying they couldn't make it on purpose. I'm saying that (IMO) it's more likely that it gets worse with every update even without malicious, conniving people trying to get you to upgrade by worsening your OS.

I wouldn't be surprised older phones get slower with updates, in fact, that feels like the most likely scenario for me, based on my experience as a software developer.

But IMO, Hanlon's (maybe Occam's, too?) Razor applies. Most likely, the teams just need to ship features, make fixes, and they mostly test on higher end, recent devices. Sure, at some point, someone tests on a lower end device that everything still works, but they probably either do not notice the issues, or shrug it off, or rationalize it (it might make x worse, but users get y in exchange, so it's fine).

Well apparently a lot of people did. Maybe Jarred didn’t, maybe you didn’t, but most people correctly predicted what was coming.

or if I want to be cynical… so that they have a big enough project where they can force gigantic rewrites without considering the outcome from the project’s point of view, all so that they can fuel their marketing strategy.

To be honest, kind of obvious looking back.

Of course it can still be fake.

But from this person’s perspective: without Claude 0 BTC recovered in x years, with Claude 5 BTC recovered in x hours.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48126736

Points: 7

# Comments: 4

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48120294

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

But maybe it’s about discussing an issue with 10 other people from different teams when it’s not necessary.

But we will never now. I guess OP didn’t want to pay the communication tax on expressing this idea clearly :)

I want to be better month after month, I want to be able to discover new areas.

Using AI tools makes sense to me. It’s important that you don’t believe everything the hype men are telling on Twitter, but it would also be a mistake to believe there is nothing valuable in this technology.

Young "AI native" coworker opens PRs with 3 screen slop description, I flagged that "I know he ain't reading all that, and therefore I ain't reading all that", so he should just give a max half-screen overview. I expect that the PR description makes sense, is correct, and have been reviewed by the person opening the PR. You can still use agents for that, but at least there is a chance with shorter descriptions that it's not completely bs.