Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | AlexandrB's commentslogin

RSS was so good for this. No wonder Google had to kill it.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Let's revive RSS.

It's still good, even if it's been on the floor beyond the "five second rule".


RSS still exists though? Do you mean Google Reader?

By killing Google Reader they essentially killed RSS. Yes, I know there are other clients some of us still use, but Google's was the biggest and most popular.

It's fine on iOS, it's painful on macOS. The "squircle jail" is one of the worst design crimes Apple has shipped in a long time and another step back for Mac iconography.

Canada just appointed their former CEO to a government role.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-...


The real LLM tell is tortured and inappropriate metaphors and unnecessary adjectives and adverbs[1]. What purpose is "quietly" serving in this headline?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORgKY9AlybA



> Why don’t we have a digital equivalent to this?

This is the one place where NFTs make some sense. Ideally, such an ownership mechanism would be open and not tied to the lifespan of a particular publisher - something that's hard to achieve in practice without a distributed system like blockchain.


Changing how the ownership of a digital asset is tracked is completely moot when the digital asset is no longer retrievable.

I wouldn't say NFTs per se, but I do think a blockchain could help here. If you can point to a specific block that documents that you purchased a copy of a piece of media, you should also be able to transfer that block to another person.

A guid works fine

I don't think this is the last time we will see this argument. Disney has a lot of value in brand equity to protect so it made sense for them to back away, but a "bad guy" company that's already regarded with distrust will probably go all in on this in the future.

Absolutely they will. It might be "innocent" at first - "oh we don't want ChatGPT to recommend scam products so we will train it to prefer "trusted" brands" and then inclusion in "trusted brands" will go up for sale with the final stage being outright paid-for recommendation bias for specific products.

The only question is how sales will work if there's some spin up time to do the post training. You can't do a real time auction like Google does, so it will be longer-term contracts I suspect.

Edit: AI is a great opportunity to run the same protection racket that's been run in various existing "marketplaces", where a brand has to buy ad placement for searches for their own name or their competitor will be able to displace them by buying it instead: "You would't want a user asking 'Which Cambells soup flavor is the healthiest?' to get a recommendation for Lipton's would you?"


this is FUD and I can have a bet with you that this won't happen in 3 years (or ever) [1]. post-training on specific brands is hard and affects overall accuracy, doesn't offer explainability, long cadence, no run time auction..

most importantly: there's enough competition that people would just use other models that don't do this. the kind of people who peddle this FUD are have not much theory of how markets work. Cory Doctorow has done a number on them and spread a conspiracy theory that everything is enshittified and everything gets worse. "just wait guys I'm telling you, the good days are over okkk?"

most importantly, the future will have a pareto optimal set up compared to today where you will have much better models, much cheaper and have options that are subsidised by ads.

[1] i can't eliminate some rando companies trying but not OpenAI not Anthropic.


3 years is probably too soon, but I would take the bet on "ever" any day of the week.

> most importantly: there's enough competition that people would just use other models that don't do this.

Show me a Smart TV without ads and some form of tracking. Some product categories are already completely enshittified despite plenty of competitors. People care about up front cost more than any other metric. So no, people will not switch to other models in numbers that matter. If your competitors can drive down up-front prices by selling ad placements or eliminating free checked luggage (airline industry) and you try to take the high road your reward will usually be irrelevance and bankruptcy[1].

Edit: [1] You could cite Apple as a counterexample, except they're busy stuffing ads into more and more of their software. Why? Because it's free money for them and 99.9% of users don't care enough to switch.


Happy to bet 5 years.

eSIMs give a lot of control back to the carrier. My carrier does not allow transferring eSIMs between phones, but I can trivially move their physical SIM card.

>My carrier does not allow transferring eSIMs between phones

That is insane.


A smaller closed size than current phones would be the main appeal for me. Phone bloat has gotten out of hand.

That's why I'm interested in the Motorola flipping phones which seem to be really small folded up and will support GrapheneOS.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: