Hacker News, Distilled

Autonomy and Right to Die

• Many support choosing one’s death to avoid prolonged suffering or cognitive decline, seeing it as personal agency (“my body, my choice”).
• Several argue it’s rational to “leave a little early” because waiting until life is “obviously not worth living” can forfeit capacity to consent.

Dementia, Consent, and Timing

• Strong focus on Alzheimer’s/dementia: identity erosion, disorientation, aggression, and 24/7 supervision needs.
• Timing dilemma: advance wishes vs the later self who cannot consent or may “want” to live; debate over whether present-you can bind future-you.
• Some propose advance directives with periodic reaffirmation; skeptics note late-stage contradictions and legal barriers.

Family Burden vs Compassion/Legacy

• Caregivers describe years of emotional, financial, and physical strain; some would prefer assisted death to spare loved ones.
• Others stress duty, love, and societal responsibility to care, warning against framing elders as “liabilities.”
• Debate over whether “how you’re remembered” should matter versus tangible harm to loved ones during decline.

Slippery Slope, Coercion, and Safeguards

• Fears: subtle pressure on elders, inheritance incentives, insurance or state cost-cutting, and ableist/eugenic drift.
• Canada cited as controversial (MAID discussions, coverage dilemmas); Quebec’s stricter two-clinician, repeated-consent model praised.
• Counterpoint: societies regularly draw lines around life/death; robust safeguards and independent review can mitigate risk.

Legal, Cultural, and Medical Context

• Switzerland: assisted dying via nonprofits; claims of police review and ban on profit; report of self-activated sodium pentobarbital infusion.
• Netherlands: “unbearable suffering” standard; US states require self-administration, sound mind, often terminal prognosis—excluding most dementia.
• Hospice as comfort-focused care; parallels to Jain sallekhana; concern over abusive practices like Thalaikoothal.

Ethics of Suffering

• Split between viewing suffering as intrinsically meaningful/formative vs unnecessary cruelty when no improvement is possible.
• Religious and secular frames clash; some insist community stakes exist, others reject external vetoes over one’s body.

Kahneman’s Decision and Work

• Some see alignment with insights like the peak–end rule (ending on one’s terms); others feel the choice was premature.
• Mixed views on his books: influential vs replication concerns; not central to judging his end-of-life choice.

Practical Takeaways

• Strong recommendations for living wills, DNRs, and clear advance directives; recognizing these don’t solve all dementia cases.
• Broad call for better end-of-life care, clearer laws, and options that respect autonomy while preventing coercion.

Personal reactions to Kahneman’s decision

• Many admire that he could “go out on his own terms,” seeing it as consistent with a life spent studying decision‑making and peak‑end effects.
• Others find it unsettling that a non‑terminal 90‑year‑old chose death mainly to avoid decline, reading it as “giving up” or driven by fear or ego.
• Some note he explicitly did not want his choice to become a public statement, and see wide debate as ignoring that wish.

Autonomy, will to live, and age

• Several argue the instinct to survive stays strong even in hardship, but hope, meaningful activities, and relationships (especially children/grandchildren) are key determinants.
• Others fear burdening family more than death itself and see voluntary exit as an altruistic choice.
• There is pushback against any implied duty to die “for others” or to avoid being inconvenient.

Dementia, identity, and advance directives

• Dementia and Alzheimer’s are described as uniquely horrifying: personality changes, aggression, paranoia, total dependency, and repeated trauma for caregivers.
• Some caregivers say they would prefer assisted death themselves rather than put relatives through what they endured.
• A recurring dilemma: does a competent “past self” have the right to bind a future demented self who might seem content or at least not want to die?
• Suggested tools: living wills, advance medical directives, and clear criteria (e.g., repeated cognitive test failures), though people dispute whether they should authorize euthanasia.

Ethics & risks of assisted dying

• Supporters emphasize “my body, my choice,” especially for incurable, painful, or degenerative conditions; forcing continued existence in torment is likened to torture.
• Opponents warn of slippery slopes: from terminal illness to mental illness, disability, poverty, or old age; they cite controversial cases in Canada, Oregon, and historical eugenics.
• Concerns include: profit incentives (insurers, states saving money), family inheritance pressure, subtle “why don’t you consider MAID?” suggestions, and weak oversight.
• Others counter that societies already draw life‑and‑death lines (war, criminal law, withdrawal of care) without “killing frenzies,” and that fear of abuse shouldn’t justify blanket bans.

Family, burden, and how we are remembered

• Some deeply value being remembered as competent and kind, not as a demented “monster,” and see leaving while still lucid as protecting both dignity and loved ones.
• Others insist love includes caring through decline; calling people in late‑stage dementia or disability “better off dead” is seen as cruel and ableist.
• There’s tension between honoring personal autonomy and guarding against social narratives that make vulnerable people feel morally obliged to disappear.

Alternatives & cultural / medical practices

• Hospice is discussed as a semi‑covert form of assisted dying via escalating morphine and withdrawal of interventions.
• Religious and philosophical views diverge: some see suffering as spiritually meaningful; others reject any obligation to endure it.
• Non‑Western and historical practices (e.g., Jain sallekhana, traditional abandonment, or ritual fasting) are raised as different cultural framings of chosen death.

Appeal of WSL and Windows Subsystem for FreeBSD

• Several commenters are enthusiastic about WSL-like tech, calling this FreeBSD port “cool” and potentially a great on-ramp for Windows users to discover FreeBSD.
• WSL2 is praised as a practical way to “live in Linux” while still having Windows for Office and gaming, with this FreeBSD variant seen as extending that model.
• Some see the main benefit as reducing setup friction versus managing separate VMs with VMware/VirtualBox/Hyper‑V.

Windows Lock‑in: Office and Games

• Office is repeatedly cited as the real lock‑in: complex corporate/academic documents, Excel power features (Power Query/Pivot, macros), and ecosystem/network effects make leaving Windows hard.
• Web Office is considered “good enough” for light use but inadequate for power users; alternatives like LibreOffice/OnlyOffice are seen as imperfect substitutes and socially hard to push on others.
• Games are the second anchor: anti‑cheat, new AAA titles, and GPU driver stability push many to keep at least one Windows machine. Some mitigate via consoles or “Linux/Mac for work, Windows/console for play.”

Linux Gaming: Viable or Not?

• One camp reports Linux gaming as “pretty damn viable,” especially on AMD hardware, with Proton generally working and performance comparable to Windows in many titles.
• Another camp reports persistent issues: specific games failing or crashing under Proton, controller lag, remote‑desktop jank, and FPS drops (10–40 fps claimed in demanding games).
• Debate includes whether selective benchmarks are cherry‑picked and whether expectations differ for “older titles” vs brand‑new releases.

FreeBSD Adoption and Hardware Support

• FreeBSD is noted as common in appliances, routers, and some large infrastructures, but rare on desktops and especially laptops.
• Multiple anecdotes describe poor laptop Wi‑Fi/brightness/audio support, leading users back to Linux; others report success with certain ThinkPads, Framework, or NUC‑style desktops.
• Enthusiasts highlight strengths: stability, conservative change vs Linux, strong documentation, ZFS, jails, bhyve, and advanced networking (netgraph) enabling elaborate nested jail/VM setups.

WSL Naming and Architecture Debates

• Many find “Windows Subsystem for Linux/FreeBSD” linguistically backward; others argue it’s technically correct as a Windows subsystem “for” running Linux.
• Trademark and historical product naming (e.g., Windows Services for UNIX) are cited as drivers of the pattern.
• WSL1 (syscall translation) is viewed as elegant but fragile and hard to keep compatible with fast‑moving Linux features (containers, namespaces, cgroups).
• WSL2’s VM-based design is defended as more practical and compatible, even if it’s “just a VM” and no longer a true NT “subsystem.”

Views on Microsoft’s Strategy and Bloat

• Some see WSL and this FreeBSD effort as part of Microsoft’s push to keep developers on Windows in the cloud era; others frame it as filling clear customer demand.
• A critical thread portrays it as “kludge on kludge,” merging large OSes and increasing complexity/bugs, with broader distrust of Microsoft’s motives (telemetry, lock‑in, past hostility to open source).

• Title rewrite on HN

  • Several argue the automated removal of “How” often distorts meaning. In this case it flipped “superpowers for agents” into “agents as human superpowers,” which readers found misleading.
  • Some recall rare good edits, but the harm from bad rewrites feels higher than any benefit.

• “Skills,” subagents, and prompt design

  • Supporters see skills as modular, on-demand instructions that don’t consume context until invoked—plus a way to orchestrate subagents for noisy subtasks.
  • Skeptics call it voodoo/prompt cargo-culting, noting many skills read like generic how-tos the model already “knows.”
  • Debate over emotional framing, “feelings journals,” and persuasion prompts: some claim such cues improve conformance; others see needless anthropomorphism and fragility.
  • Several recommend mixing hard-coded workflows (orchestration) with LLM-driven steps, rather than relying on English-only guidance.

• Evidence and evaluation

  • Strong calls for rigorous A/B tests with quantifiable metrics across scenarios; frustration that most posts are anecdata.
  • Cited large-scale trials exist but often rely on self-reports, which skeptics discount.
  • Measuring probabilistic black boxes is feasible, but expensive and complex; this gap hinders adoption.

• Workflow practices and limitations

  • Effective patterns: lightweight CLAUDE.md, spec.md/to-do.md, plan→implement loops, and tight iteration with frequent clarifying questions.
  • Critics say agents ignore existing conventions, duplicate functionality, and miss required parameters; detailed guardrails help but are often bypassed.
  • Context management is hard: long contexts degrade quality; subagents can isolate context but burn tokens. “Context recall” across sessions is a pain point; some workflows attempt to address it.

• Productivity, effort, and cost

  • Many report higher output but greater cognitive load—likened to cycling with electric assist: faster, but exhausting and failure-prone when “out of juice.”
  • Best results come when treating agents like interns: specify, review plans, and perform strict code review.
  • Token costs are a concern; subagents can be transformative but expensive. It’s unclear if lower-tier plans suffice for heavy use.

• Where it works, where it doesn’t

  • Works well for small, repetitive tasks, tests, code search, and web dev integration; struggles with large, interconnected codebases and some languages.
  • Disagreement over what counts as “non-trivial.” One cited feature touched many files; detractors argued it was still low cognitive load—and that’s exactly where LLMs shine.

• Miscellaneous

  • Some want concrete end-to-end demos and benchmarks, not vibes.
  • Minor gripes: home directory pollution vs XDG, and confusion over licenses on AI-generated code.
  • Meta point: if everyone has the “superpower,” advantages may shift to those who orchestrate it best.

HN title rewriting complaint

• Several comments criticize HN’s automatic removal of “How” from titles, arguing it often distorts meaning.
• In this case, people note the change reverses the intended relationship between “superpowers” and “coding agents,” making the title misleading.

Tone of the article: excitement vs. satire/voodoo

• Many readers find the writeup fascinating but “reads like satire,” especially the “feelings journal” and therapy‑style agents.
• Multiple commenters describe the approach as “voodoo” rather than engineering—lots of ritualistic prompt text, persuasion tricks, and emotional framing.
• Others defend it as creative experimentation that uncovers genuinely new techniques.

“Skills” concept, prompts, and subagents

• Core idea: external “skills” are markdown instructions the model can pull in as needed, often discovered by having the LLM read books or docs and extract reusable patterns.
• Some see this as just structured context / few‑shot prompting with extra ceremony; others stress that skills don’t consume context until invoked and that “agents as tools” (subagents) are an important pattern for isolating noisy subtasks.
• There’s confusion over how skills differ from tools, custom commands, or a single well‑crafted global prompt (e.g., CLAUDE.md); some think the system is over‑engineered.

Demand for benchmarks and concrete value

• Repeated calls for A/B tests, metrics, and non‑trivial, end‑to‑end examples on real codebases.
• Skeptics note that most posts are anecdotal “vibes,” with cherry‑picked success stories; they fear many layers of complexity are being added without evidence they outperform simpler prompting.
• A few links to more rigorous or at least more concrete experiments are shared, but even those are critiqued for relying on self‑reported gains.

Experiences with coding agents: powerful but brittle

• Some commenters report large productivity boosts, especially on repetitive or boilerplate tasks, debugging, tests, and web work—likening LLMs to a gas pedal or electric bike: faster, but you must steer and still get tired.
• Others find agents create messy, duplicated, or context‑ignorant code, especially on larger or more idiosyncratic codebases; for them, fixing AI output is slower than writing code directly.
• Many emphasize that effective use feels like managing an intern or junior team: you must specify work precisely, maintain design docs/specs, and review every line.

Meta‑skill and complexity concerns

• Some feel the “agentic coding” ecosystem (skills, subagents, journals, persuasion prompts) is racing ahead of mainstream developers, turning programming into managing opaque meta‑systems.
• Several argue that a modest setup—a single, carefully written project prompt, short tasks, and tight human control—is enough, and that elaborate multi‑agent workflows may not justify their cognitive and token costs.

Hardware ambition vs. cross‑platform reality

• Sony’s pattern: bold hardware ideas that become “just another console” after launch hype. Some value the risk-taking.
• Cross‑platform releases blunt incentives to exploit unique features; most hardware mastery comes late in a lifecycle.
• If Xbox retreats, Switch 2 won’t replace it as a performance peer; its audience and power targets differ.

Ray tracing: promise vs payoff

• Critiques: heavy performance cost for subtle gains; vendor skew (Nvidia advantages); artistic homogenization; may “never” hit real-time without compromises.
• Practical issues: denoising blur, branchy workloads, BVH rebuilds, and dynamic scenes. Optional RT often underwhelms because design must also support non‑RT paths.
• Defenses: faster iteration (fewer bakes), dynamic lighting benefits, smaller teams unlocking high-end lighting; examples cited where RT‑only or RT‑centric approaches work.
• Disagreement on scalability: some claim full-scene RT has near fixed cost per pixel; others counter with scene complexity, BVH traversal (O(log n)), and rebuild costs.
• Hybrid remains favored: rasterized primaries with RT GI/shadows; path tracing terminology and feasibility debated.

AI upscaling and frame generation

• Skepticism: used to ship poorly optimized games; introduces ghosting/blur; adds latency; quality losses not well captured by benchmarks.
• Support: perceived quality often fine at moderate settings; enables higher FPS on cheaper hardware; consoles have leaned on resolution scaling for years.
• Idea of per‑game, richer upscalers (motion vectors, depth, normals) noted, but much low‑hanging fruit may already be used.

Architecture “rethink” and AMD alignment

• Many see PS6’s ML/RT focus as AMD’s broader roadmap rather than a Sony‑only exotic design; “radiance cores” described as analogous to Nvidia RT cores.
• Mesh/neural shaders mentioned as part of the wider rethink; adoption gated by hardware ubiquity.
• Emphasis perceived on efficiency (bandwidth, ML accelerators) over brute force.

Games, value, and cadence

• Split views on PS5’s lineup: from “underwhelming, few true exclusives” to “plenty of strong titles and GOTY contenders.”
• Rising budgets and longer cycles reduce novelty; ports to PC weaken exclusivity’s pull.
• Many prefer gameplay innovation over graphics; Nintendo’s approach cited. PS5’s standout improvement: fast IO (SSD + decompression) enabling aggressive streaming.

PC vs console experience

• PCs offer flexibility but face shader compilation stutter and OS/update hassles; consoles benefit from fixed targets and precompiled shaders.
• Controller/Big Picture workarounds exist but aren’t universally seamless.

Outlook

• Broad sense of diminishing returns and price pressure; expectation that PS6 will lean further into AI upscaling/frame‑gen.
• Generative rendering futures are hotly debated; feasibility, determinism, and latency remain unclear. Cloud‑only futures challenged by latency.

Sony’s hardware “novelty” and the console lifecycle

• Commenters note a recurring pattern: each PlayStation launches with touted architectural innovations that, after a few years, mostly feel like “just another console.”
• Many still see value in Sony taking calculated hardware risks in a world where consoles have converged toward PCs internally.
• There’s broad agreement that hardware is only fully exploited late in a console’s life; cross‑platform development disincentivizes deep, platform‑specific optimizations.
• Some point to PS5’s fast SSD, haptics, and low-noise 4K performance as genuinely impactful, while others argue nothing truly novel originated there.

Ray tracing: promise vs. payoff

• A large subthread criticizes hardware ray tracing as an overhyped, expensive feature with modest perceptual gains and major performance hits.
• Skeptics argue:
  • Developers are already extremely good at faking lighting with rasterization.
  • Current RT largely adds “5% better reflections” for “200% cost.”
  • It tends to push homogeneous, realism-obsessed art styles.
• Defenders counter that RT simplifies content creation (fewer baked lights/shadow maps), enables more dynamic scenes, and will matter more once games are designed around RT‑only lighting.
• There’s technical disagreement on whether full real‑time path tracing is ever practical on consumer hardware; some see consoles as ideal fixed targets for that, others say it’s fundamentally too expensive.

AI upscaling and frame generation

• Many worry PS6’s ML focus just institutionalizes “fake frames” and lower native resolutions, masking poor optimization and degrading image quality (ghosting, blur, temporal artifacts).
• Others compare it to video compression tradeoffs: most people prefer higher fps at slightly lower clarity, especially on midrange hardware.
• There’s debate over how noticeable upscaling artifacts are, heavily dependent on display size and user sensitivity.

Future of graphics vs. gameplay

• Several comments argue we’re in a “plateau”: gains from more pixels and Hz are diminishing, while development costs and timelines (e.g., decade‑long AAA cycles) are exploding.
• Some foresee transformer‑ or NN‑based rendering dominating by the 2030s; others doubt such models can handle strict latency, determinism, and world‑state consistency.
• Many say they’d rather see investment in gameplay, simulation depth, and faster iteration than ever‑heavier RT/AI stacks.

PS5 library and platform positioning

• Strong disagreement over whether PS5’s game lineup is underwhelming or industry‑leading; critics highlight few true exclusives and heavy reliance on remakes/ports, defenders cite GOTY nominations and robust first‑party output.
• Rising dev times and cross‑platform ports erode the sense of each console having a distinct library.
• Nintendo’s success with lower‑spec Switch is repeatedly cited as evidence that fun and exclusives matter more than cutting‑edge graphics.

Which lectures and sources are being discussed

• Early comments confuse Thiel’s 2014 Commonwealth Club talk (standard VC themes) with the newer, more explicitly religious “antichrist” lectures.
• Others link to a recent Fortune piece, Thiel’s own essay, and the Guardian’s annotated transcript to clarify it’s a separate, more recent, more private set of talks.

Reactions to the Guardian article

• Several commenters see the piece as a hostile, mocking “hit job” that attacks Thiel’s character and style more than his arguments, calling it dense and digressive.
• Others argue Thiel “does it to himself,” and that harsh scrutiny is appropriate when someone with enormous influence starts naming “antichrists.”

Interpreting Thiel’s antichrist and apocalypse framing

• Summary extracted by one reader: Thiel warns that real or perceived existential crises (AI, climate, bioweapons, etc.) will be used to justify a world‑consolidating power grab; that consolidation is the true danger.
• Multiple commenters see this as a thinly veiled attack on collective action and global regulation, highly attractive to billionaires whose main fear is popular pushback.
• Some highlight the irony that Thiel helped empower a highly illiberal political project while decrying “one-world” tyranny.

Regulation, libertarianism, and democracy

• One thread claims Silicon Valley’s libertarian culture refuses to consider regulation even as unregulated tech causes many problems.
• Pushback argues regulation itself often entrenches incumbents and kills innovation.
• Others counter: regulation usually appears after severe industry abuses; dismissing it or equating regulators with the antichrist is framed as anti-democratic.
• Several note that “there is always regulation” — the choice is between societal rules and self-serving rules set by powerful actors.

Billionaire psychology and inequality

• Many describe Thiel’s rhetoric as delusional street‑corner apocalypticism, made dangerous by his wealth and platform.
• There’s extended speculation about ultra-wealthy tech figures: insulated from normal feedback, flattered constantly, and seeking meaning in grand civilizational or religious narratives.
• Inequality is said to create not just power inequality but “attention inequality,” letting fringe ideas dominate discourse.

Religious and historical context

• Commenters situate Thiel’s antichrist talk within a long US tradition of labeling global institutions (UN, etc.) as apocalyptic “one-world government.”
• Others clarify that “antichrist” in the New Testament doesn’t map neatly to Revelation’s beasts, suggesting much of this eschatology is theologically muddled.

Tech, AI, and public distrust

• Some agree Thiel’s apocalypse list (AI, climate, bioweapons, nuclear war, fertility) reflects real 20–30 year concerns; others see it as the narrow obsession of aging tech elites.
• A side discussion argues that public dislike of tech isn’t just social media and phones but also pervasive automation, surveillance, and unaccountable algorithmic decision-making (e.g., scandals like faulty fraud-detection systems).
• One commenter views Thiel’s antichrist rhetoric as a tactical reframing: making tech skeptics look extreme while hedging with small acknowledgments of risk.

Why anyone listens to Thiel

• A few commenters, not exactly “fans,” say he sometimes offers unusual perspectives that spur thinking, even if much of the antichrist material feels like conspiracy “slop.”
• Others argue his appeal comes from people who experience any constraint on their freedom (via regulation or collective action) as a personal attack and therefore resonate with his framing of regulation as quasi-demonic.

Physics and Thermodynamics of Slap-Cooking

• Several commenters challenge the article’s implication that you must keep the chicken at cooking temperature for a long time.
• They argue that once internal temperature reaches ~165°F (≈74°C), protein denaturation and pathogen kill happen very fast; holding time mainly matters at lower temperatures.
• Others counter that “safe to eat” and “culinarily cooked” differ: connective tissue breakdown and texture changes may still require sustained heat.

Single Impact vs Many Hits

• Multiple people note the article quietly shifts from “one hit” to “many hits,” which avoids the more interesting extreme-physics question.
• Consensus: a single impact with enough energy to heat the whole chicken would likely obliterate it rather than cook it.
• The realistic problem is distributing energy evenly without destroying structure, which favors repeated smaller hits plus insulation.

Errors and Idealized Assumptions

• One commenter analyzes the Stefan–Boltzmann calculation and says the article misused 165°F as a blackbody temperature and ignored unit conversion.
• Recomputing at 74°C and factoring in incoming room-temperature radiation yields much lower net power loss (~400 W, quickly dropping), making the 2 kW figure clearly off.
• The “spherical chicken in vacuum” idealization is widely mocked but also embraced as classic physics humor.

Experimental and Real-World Analogies

• Multiple links point to a popular YouTube “chicken slapper” machine that actually warmed chicken via high-frequency impacts.
• Analogies include blacksmithing (keeping metal hot by rapid hammering), high-shear cooking blenders, and the “chicken gun” for impact tests (and its gelatin substitutes).
• Some explore extreme alternatives: shooting a chicken at a wall, orbital re-entry cooking, or rocket-nosecone cooking, with the shared conclusion that structural integrity would be lost long before nice food results.

Ethics and Reactions

• A subset of commenters finds the entire premise disturbing, highlighting that chickens are sentient and raising animal-cruelty concerns.
• A linked real-world case of someone cooking a live chick on video prompts debate: some see it as clearly cruel, others contrast it with industrial chick culling, while disagreeing strongly on moral equivalence.

Humor, Language, and Miscellany

• Thread is heavy on jokes: McNuggetization, “orbital chicken coops,” “sous-vide by bat,” Gen-Z slang (“slaps” vs “cooked”), and software analogies (“you can’t make a baby in a month with 9 women”).
• Minor tangents cover sous-vide being misused as a verb, digits of π masquerading as an SSN, and HN threads as “Anki cards for nerd trivia.”

Self‑Hosting vs. Cloud

• Advocates say local hosting can cut network energy (less bandwidth) and align usage with home solar; some report no active cooling needed.
• Skeptics ask how it reduces total demand if the same workloads still need power; benefits hinge on renewables and individual setups.
• Several note new datacenter buildout is driven primarily by AI, not traditional hosting.

Climate Risk: Collapse vs. Resilience

• Doomer view: 1.5°C already passed, 2°C likely soon; risks include droughts, disasters, migration, food shocks, and societal instability.
• Counterview: “Civilizational collapse” is a high bar; societies are resilient, adapt under stress (wartime-style mobilization), and can mitigate via technology.
• Dispute centers on definitions of “collapse” (e.g., “fall of Rome” vs. total breakdown) and compounding events.

Food Systems and Extinction

• Concern: Climate volatility threatens agriculture; water scarcity and pollinator loss amplify risks. Price shocks, famine, and migration are plausible.
• Mitigations proposed: Greenhouses/hydroponics can boost yields but require major capital, energy, and time; many crops aren’t ideal for controlled environments; distribution and behavior (hoarding) may worsen crises.
• Extinction debate: One side minimizes species loss (extinction is natural); others argue current rates far exceed background, threatening ecosystems and food chains. A recent Australian shrew extinction is cited.

Emissions, Data, and Trends

• One thread claims emissions are leveling off (US down since 2005; global post‑COVID “over‑recovery”).
• Pushback cites rising atmospheric CO2 growth rates; clarification that concentrations can rise even if emissions growth slows.

Energy Mix: Coal, Gas, Solar, Nuclear

• Coal restarts framed as cheaper short‑term (reviving old plants) versus long‑term environmental/health costs; critics say this socializes costs.
• Solar/wind seen as cheaper and surging (particularly in China); trade policy and permitting slow US buildout.
• Nuclear advocates cite zero‑carbon baseload and coal‑to‑nuclear transitions/SMRs; critics argue current nuclear is too slow/costly in the West, with regulatory and megaproject overruns.
• Natural gas “cheap era” may wane; storage remains a constraint for renewables.

China and Competitiveness

• Claims that China builds coal/nuclear weekly are challenged: recent reports suggest plateauing coal burn and most new capacity from wind/solar; still building coal plants as reserve.

Policy and Politics

• Proposals: Lobby for coal‑to‑nuclear conversions, fund SMRs, streamline nuclear regulation; expand renewables and grid.
• Barriers: Alleged hostility to solar in some US jurisdictions; project cancellations; partisan narratives disputed.
• Coal comeback skepticism (declining US coal infrastructure) meets counterexamples (e.g., new Oakland coal terminal plans).

Opportunities

• Entrepreneurs urged to supply wind/solar/storage; red states could benefit economically from solar buildout, but policy alignment is uneven.

Self-hosting, AI, and data center demand

• Some argue coal‑powered data centers are a reason to “ditch big companies” and self‑host.
• Others question this, noting devices still need power, and utilities must supply the same total energy.
• Points in favor of self‑hosting: lower network bandwidth (thus less network energy), better alignment with home solar production, and potentially no need for active cooling.
• Several comments note that much new data center capacity is for AI, not traditional hosting.

---

How bad will climate change get?

• One side warns we’ve crossed 1.5°C, are likely to hit 2°C by ~2035, and face species loss, mass migration, resource conflicts, and possible civilizational decline.
• Others are confident civilization won’t “collapse” by 2050 or 2100, arguing human resilience, historical precedents (e.g., WWII did not end civilization), and adaptation capacity.
• A middle view distinguishes between global civilizational collapse and regional collapses (e.g., parts of Africa/Asia), plus steep declines in quality of life rather than total breakdown.

---

Food, refugees, and social stability

• Many see food system disruption as the key risk: unpredictable weather, droughts, and heat can cut yields and drive up prices.
• Optimists argue this mainly means higher costs and a shift to more intensive methods (greenhouses, hydroponics), plus reducing waste.
• Pessimists outline cascades: harvest failures → price spikes → hoarding and crime → state repression and breakdown, especially in poorer regions.
• Climate refugees and freshwater scarcity are highlighted as destabilizing forces; opinions differ on whether these cause hardship or systemic collapse.

---

Species extinction and ecosystem collapse

• Some dismiss extinctions as natural and inevitable, arguing human comfort should prevail and cheap fossil energy prevents collapse.
• Others counter that current extinction rates far exceed historical background, threaten food chains and pollinators, and risk large‑scale ecosystem collapse.
• Debate centers on whether the speed of extinctions now outpaces evolution and migration enough to make this extinction event qualitatively different.

---

Emissions trends and atmospheric CO₂

• One camp says CO₂ emissions are no longer increasing at an increasing rate, citing plateauing or reduced emissions in the US and early signs of a Chinese pivot.
• Critics point to Mauna Loa data showing atmospheric CO₂ levels still rising faster over time; defenders reply this lags and differs from annual emission flows.

---

Fossil fuels, markets, and “doomerism”

• Some argue letting markets run will naturally handle fossil fuel depletion via price signals, avoiding “planned” collapse.
• Others say this guarantees worst‑case warming, as markets ignore long‑term climate externalities and can’t rapidly deploy nuclear/renewables when shortages hit.
• There’s tension between “doomerism” (seen as demotivating) and insistence that lack of urgent policy change justifies pessimism.

---

Nuclear vs solar/wind and coal‑to‑nuclear ideas

• Pro‑nuclear voices say we have enough fuel for centuries and that anyone serious about decarbonization must support nuclear, including coal‑to‑nuclear plant conversions and SMRs.
• Critics respond that today nuclear is slower and more expensive than solar + batteries, particularly in the West with chronic megaproject overruns.
• Others argue regulation, not fundamental technology, is the main cause of nuclear delays, pointing to faster builds in countries like China.
• Some see political opposition to nuclear and over‑regulation as effectively extending fossil fuel use; others claim nuclear advocacy is often used to stall cheaper renewables.

---

China, growth, and “keeping up”

• One view: the US must burn coal (and build nuclear) to stay economically competitive with China, echoing “no rich, low‑energy countries.”
• Multiple replies note that China’s recent demand growth is mostly met by wind, solar, and storage; fossil and coal use have begun to plateau or decline slightly.
• Critics suggest the US should prioritize scaling renewables (e.g., not canceling large solar projects) instead of leaning on coal.

---

US politics, solar hostility, and corruption

• Some commenters highlight state and federal hostility to solar despite abundant land and sun, blaming legalized corruption and incumbent fossil interests.
• Others call for lobbying focused on nuclear (especially coal‑to‑nuclear transitions), SMR funding, and deregulation as politically realistic under the current administration.
• There is disagreement over how partisan this is: some see it as primarily a fossil‑fuel–aligned right‑wing project; others note high‑consumption tech sectors voting left also drive demand (AI, crypto, etc.).

---

Will coal really come back?

• Skeptics doubt a major coal resurgence, citing collapsed US coal production, shuttered mines, and the capital cost of rebuilding ports and logistics.
• Counter‑evidence is offered: at least one large new coal terminal project (after protracted litigation) is moving forward, showing some investors still see coal exports as viable.

---

Historical blame and symbolism

• Some trace today’s situation to decades of US policy: from early solar on the White House to later alignment with fossil fuel interests across parties.
• Symbolic gestures (installing/removing solar panels) are contrasted with the lack of sustained structural change over ~50 years.

TikTok’s “Joy” Policy and Engagement Logic

• Several comments argue the “joy of TikTok” rule is data‑driven: stress‑inducing or disturbing content hurts long‑term engagement even if it spikes short‑term views.
• People frame TikTok as optimized for dopamine (pleasure, escapism) rather than cortisol (stress, anxiety), making shocking or graphic news a net negative for retention.
• Others counter that this is exactly why TikTok is a bad lens for serious news: it’s a highly curated entertainment feed, not a civic information platform.

Censorship History and Political Bias

• Multiple commenters note TikTok has long been aggressive with moderation: deleting mildly negative comments, suppressing “undesirable” content (e.g., “ugly, poor, or disabled” users), and enforcing various political red lines.
• There is disagreement over bias: some say it amplifies pro‑Trump content; others highlight past censorship of LGBTQ+, disabled, and anti‑genocide content, or of coverage critical of Israel.
• Some see the removal of the ICE/CBP journalist arrest clip as part of a pattern of selectively muting material embarrassing to current authorities; others think it’s just “disturbing/violent” enforcement.

Private Platforms vs State Coercion

• One camp stresses: platforms are private, not public utilities; they can set any content rules, and users should self‑host if they dislike them.
• Another camp says that argument collapses when the US government forces a foreign platform to sell precisely to change its information flows; they describe this as theft and weaponization against domestic dissent.
• Defenders of the forced sale frame it as necessary to prevent Chinese state influence via a mass platform.

Democracy, Foreign Influence, and Free Speech

• Strong clash over whether restricting foreign political influence is compatible with democracy:
  • Some argue any state attempt to “protect” citizens from influence destroys free speech; people must be free to consume any political content, foreign or domestic.
  • Others distinguish normal influence from targeted state‑run election interference and disinformation (e.g., lies about mail‑in ballots), arguing some guardrails around the electoral process are legitimate.

Politics vs Escapism and User Welfare

• Many users say they don’t want politics in every app; they want cat‑video escapism, not 24/7 crisis and “doomscrolling,” which they find psychologically harmful.
• Others insist politics already shapes every aspect of life, and sanitizing disturbing realities (e.g., journalists violently detained) is complacent or complicit.
• There’s side debate on whether maximizing engagement serves users’ “best interests” or merely exploits their attention, with national‑politics addiction contrasted to ignorance of impactful local politics.

Overall sentiment

• Strong backlash: many call Liquid Glass a usability downgrade; a vocal minority finds it fresh and enjoyable.
• Polarized reactions often hinge on device, eyesight, and tolerance for animations/novelty.

Legibility and layout

• Transparency frequently yields “text on text,” low contrast, and unreadable UI in real use (notifications, Messages, Photos, Weather).
• Overlays and larger rounded elements consume space and obscure content; buttons feel farther from edges; some praise larger hit targets.
• Some like the visual “liveliness”; others find animations twitchy and distracting.

Performance and battery

• Numerous reports of lag, stutter, and frame drops (notably iPhone 12/13 Mini, 13 Pro, 16 Pro Max); others say performance is fine (SE 3, 12 Mini, 13).
• Battery complaints are common, especially on smaller/older devices; a few report no change. Cause is unclear.

Safari and navigation

• Tab button moved/hidden; discoverability relies on gestures (swipe up on URL bar; swipe left/right on bar; double-tap ellipsis). Many find this harder.
• Search now anchored at bottom; some appreciate the reach, others dislike retraining and animations.

Accessibility workarounds (trade-offs)

• Reduce Transparency/Increase Contrast/Reduce Motion improve readability for many.
• Downsides: solid slabs, “letterboxing,” worse aesthetics, and in some cases reduced contrast despite settings. No per-app/percentage control.

Inconsistencies, bugs, and QA

• Mixed old/new design within Apple’s own apps; visual glitches (dark/light mode flicker, PiP radius mismatch, unreadable headers), UI jank in drawers and keyboards.
• Reports of WebKit regressions (fixed inputs offset), guided access issues, memory leaks, missed alarms. Quality control widely criticized.

Device-specific notes

• iPhone Minis: frequent complaints about cramped UI, lag, and battery drain.
• Apple Watch: some see sluggishness and battery hit; others report smooth behavior.
• iPadOS: loss of Split View/Slide Over frustrates touch-first users; new windowing better with keyboard, fiddly by touch.
• macOS: oversized rounded corners, space-hungry chrome, Safari tab regressions; occasional broken blur in fullscreen.

Developers and ecosystem impact

• Many plan to opt out via UIDesignRequiresCompatibility; fear it may become mandatory.
• SwiftUI maturity/performance questioned; changing betas left targets moving. A11Y regressions cited.

Upgrading/downgrading

• Brief downgrade window; older versions stop being signed. Delayed OTA helps only when not already on 26. Upgrade nags exist but are avoidable.

Positive takes

• Some enjoy the aesthetics, fluidity, and bottom search; see it as a needed refresh and expect iterative fixes.

Overall reaction & article context

• Many commenters say iOS/macOS/iPadOS 26 are the first Apple OS releases they actively dislike; some regret upgrading, others are delaying upgrades or even leaving the Apple ecosystem.
• A minority say Liquid Glass is “fine” or “delightful” and accuse critics of overreacting or just disliking change.
• Several note the NN/g article is clearly an editorial, not based on user studies, but still see its critiques as accurate.

Usability, readability & space

• Widespread complaints about low contrast, “text on text,” and translucent elements over busy or moving backgrounds making content harder to read, especially Notifications, Messages, Mail, and Safari.
• Bigger rounded elements, margins, and floating controls are seen as wasting screen real estate and shrinking visible content, especially on smaller iPhones and Macs with limited vertical space.
• Some appreciate that buttons look like buttons again and that search fields at the bottom are easier to reach, but argue this could have been done without Liquid Glass.

Performance, battery & bugs

• Many reports of lag, stutter, and overheating on iPhone 12/13/13 mini, 16 Pro Max, Apple Watch Series 10 and some Macs; others say performance is fine even on SE 3 or 13 Pro.
• Multiple anecdotes of sharply worse battery life after 26, including phones dying mid‑day that previously lasted all day.
• Users describe numerous visual and behavioral bugs (keyboard not appearing, misaligned controls, weird mode switches, memory leaks, CarPlay selection colors, WebKit regressions, guided access issues).

App- and device-specific regressions

• Safari: extra taps/gestures to open tabs, hidden tab button, inconsistent gestures, overlays obscuring content. Some revert to older tab layouts via settings.
• iPadOS 26 windowing: widely criticized for making touch-first multitasking far worse and removing Split View/Slide Over; feels designed for keyboard use, not touch.
• Watch, CarPlay, and FaceTime controls: animations and subtle selection states make quick interactions while driving or exercising harder.

Accessibility, ageing eyes & “invisible gestures”

• Commenters with mild vision issues find Liquid Glass punishing: harder to distinguish icons, emails, and widgets; brightness and small menu-bar text remain problematic.
• Strong pushback on the idea that “eyes can handle it” — people cite decades of visual design research and note accessibility benefits everyone (e.g., outdoors glare, fatigue).
• Heavy use of undiscoverable gestures (Safari tab access, iPad windowing, etc.) is criticized; people don’t want to learn “secret” interactions.

Workarounds & opt-outs

• Popular mitigations: Reduce Transparency, Increase Contrast, Reduce Motion, and related accessibility toggles; these often improve usability and performance but can make the UI uglier or introduce layout issues and letterboxing.
• Developers mention UIDesignRequiresCompatibility to disable Liquid Glass in their apps, but worry Apple may eventually ignore it.

Developer & ecosystem concerns

• Some iOS devs say Liquid Glass undermines years of work following Apple’s own Human Interface Guidelines and accessibility guidance.
• The mix of old UIKit and new Liquid Glass styles in stock apps is compared to Windows’ long-running “two UI worlds” problem.
• Startups worry they must now spend time re-skinning for a design system they dislike, rather than sharing a cross‑platform design language.

Broader interpretations & comparisons

• Many frame this as Apple’s “Vista/Aero” or “iOS 7” moment: flashy demo-ware that degrades everyday use.
• Several speculate this is rushed, resume-driven, or meant to unify with Vision Pro, and see it as a symptom of deeper dysfunction, long feedback cycles, and annual release pressure.
• Others counter that similar outrage accompanied past redesigns and predict users will adapt and forget, though critics argue this time the usability regressions are objectively worse.

DIY Approaches and Setups

• Many built similar systems using Raspberry Pi + NFC readers, Python (nfcpy) with VLC, Home Assistant, Jellyfin, MPD, or QR codes.
• Simple path: write streaming URLs (Spotify, Apple Music, PlexAmp deep links) to cheap NFC tags; phones can open them directly.
• Alternatives include QR-code cards read by a camera, floppy disks with filepaths, or SD-card based players (e.g., Tangara).

Comparisons to Yoto/Tonies

• Yoto praised for kid-friendly design but cards seen as pricey and limited (no direct Spotify on cards).
• Clarified behavior: cards contain URLs to cloud playlists; device downloads to internal storage on first use, then can play offline.
• Interest in reverse-engineering Yoto to accept custom URLs, local content, and integrate with Home Assistant/Sonos; concern about allow-listed URLs and baked-in certs.
• German projects cited: Toniebox (hackable via community tools), RPi-Jukebox-RFID, and TonUINO; Phoniebox also popular.

Physicality and Music Discovery

• Strong nostalgia for browsing physical media; cards viewed as a tactile, social way to prompt album-level listening and conversation.
• Ideas for social discovery: low-cost racks of sample cards; kids trading/sharing; adding tracklists/liner notes to cards.

Streaming vs. Ownership Debate

• Pro-ownership: curated libraries reduce choice overload, deepen engagement, avoid missing/DRM’d content, and ensure gapless playback.
• Pro-streaming: broader discovery via related artists/radios; more intentional listening possible than in CD era.
• Disagreement over algorithmic/AI-generated “slop” in playlists and whether modern listening is more passive.

Cost, Materials, and Practical Tips

• Bulk NFC tags are very cheap; cloning official cards is possible but fiddly.
• Practical tips: corner cutters for clean cards, cassette/minidisc art templates, ultra-thin NFC inlays; microSDs suggested for on-card storage in other designs.
• Time tradeoffs noted for parents vs. DIY appeal.

Use Cases Beyond Music

• Adaptations for audiobooks, kids’ podcasts, elders/low-vision users, and even triggering smart home scenes.
• “MTV channel” ideas via curated video playlists and pseudo-live apps.

Tutorial Completeness and Clarifications

• Some wanted more NFC how-to and hardware details; follow-up promised on Pi + NFC HAT and display.
• iOS/Android NFC behavior explained by commenters; PlexAmp deep links can autoplay.

Critiques and Cautions

• A few saw the project as nostalgic or prescriptive; others emphasized it as a fun, personal way to connect with kids.
• Advice to avoid showing children’s faces online.

DIY and Technical Approaches

• Many commenters have built similar systems: NFC or RFID cards triggering Plex, Jellyfin, MPD, VLC, Sonos, Home Assistant, or Phoniebox-style Raspberry Pi jukeboxes.
• Alternatives to NFC are mentioned: QR-code cards, floppy disks with playlists, SD cards per album, and even hacked Fisher-Price record players.
• Several note that writable NFC tags are cheap and easily programmed from a phone; one complaint is that the article focuses more on card design than on NFC wiring, flashing, costs, and hardware detail.
• Some plan or have built “MTV-like” channels or album players using YouTube downloads and apps like quasiTV.

Comparisons to Yoto, Tonies, and Other Products

• The project is often likened to a DIY Yoto / Toniebox / similar German RFID jukeboxes.
• Owners praise those devices for giving kids agency without screens, but criticize high card prices, lack of direct Spotify integration, and cloud dependence.
• There’s interest in reverse-engineering Yoto/Tonies to use local storage, home servers, or custom URLs; some progress on dumping firmware and mapping APIs is reported.

Physicality, Nostalgia, and Kids’ Music Discovery

• Many resonate with the goal: counter “formless” streaming by giving kids tactile ways to browse, select, and “own” albums, akin to flipping through LPs or CDs, trading tapes, or exploring a parent’s collection.
• Others suggest simpler routes: buy a CD player or vinyl and take kids to used music shops or flea markets.
• Several describe kids quickly engaging with physical media (Yoto cards, CDs, records, NFC toys) and even becoming “little DJs.”

Streaming vs Ownership and Intentional Listening

• One camp argues streaming/“all the music” makes everything interchangeable, encourages passive background listening, and weakens attachment to albums.
• Another camp counters that modern tools (Spotify radios, related artists, playlists) enable deeper intentional discovery than radio/CD eras, and that teens today still build strong musical identities.
• Extended subthread debates whether today’s landscape (including AI-generated “slop”) worsens or improves things compared with past scarcity.

Legal and Practical Concerns

• Some ask how people source DRM-free audio (ripping CDs vs. re-buying downloads vs. grey areas around streaming).
• Others downplay legal worries for personal, in-home use, while a few highlight stricter jurisdictions.

Reception and Critique

• Most responses are enthusiastic, praising the parenting angle, aesthetics, and low cost.
• A minority see the narrative as nostalgic or sanctimonious, or as imposing a parent’s tastes, though others defend it as a loving, playful project rather than a manifesto.

Wired vs Wi‑Fi for Home Networks

• Strong consensus: anything that doesn’t move (TVs, consoles, desktops, set‑top boxes, stationary laptops, Sonos, etc.) should be on Ethernet. This frees airtime and dramatically improves Wi‑Fi reliability for phones/tablets.
• Several argue that “the best way to speed up Wi‑Fi is to not use it” for heavy, continuous loads like video streaming or large model downloads.
• Some push back that many people can’t or won’t run cable (rentals, apartments, concrete/brick walls, aesthetics), so Wi‑Fi remains the default.

Workarounds for “No Ethernet in the Walls”

• Suggested options:
  • Flat or color‑matched cables routed along baseboards, crown molding, or via raceways.
  • MoCA over existing coax: widely praised as fast and stable (often ~1 Gbps+).
  • Powerline: highly mixed reports—works well for some, unusable and RF‑noisy for others; strong criticism that it radiates HF interference.
• Some reuse old phone wiring (Cat3/4‑pair) for 100 Mbps–1 Gbps runs where it happens to work.

Wi‑Fi Configuration, Channel Width, and Roaming

• Many recommend:
  • 20 MHz on 2.4 GHz, 40 MHz on 5 GHz; wide 80/160 MHz channels often hurt SNR and reliability, especially in dense environments.
  • Avoiding 40 MHz on 2.4 GHz because it occupies half the usable band.
  • More wired APs at lower TX power for better coverage and less co‑channel interference.
• People report big real‑world gains from narrowing channel width (e.g., from 80 to 20 MHz) in marginal rooms.
• Roaming remains painful: client‑driven behavior makes devices cling to weak APs; even with 802.11r and multiple APs, seamless roaming is rare in stone/brick houses.

IoT, Segmentation, and Airtime

• Many households now have 20–60+ Wi‑Fi devices; IoT (plugs, bulbs, cameras, thermostats, etc.) drives the count.
• Common pattern: put IoT on a separate 2.4 GHz SSID/VLAN, firewall it, and keep laptops/phones on 5 GHz. Rationale: cheap IoT radios use old standards, consume lots of airtime, and may be insecure.
• Some prefer non‑Wi‑Fi IoT (Zigbee/Z‑Wave) to reduce contention.

Speed vs Responsiveness and Automated Speed Tests

• Thread agrees with the article that responsiveness/latency often matter more than peak throughput, but users are conditioned to care only about “speed test Mbps.”
• Skepticism about “automated high‑intensity speed tests” exists, but others confirm: ISP gateways (Xfinity, Verizon), Eero, Nest, DOCSIS modems, and SamKnows boxes do periodic tests—often in‑network, which may limit wider impact.

Ethernet and Standards Evolution

• Debate on whether consumer Ethernet is “stagnant”:
  • One side: 1 Gbps has been “standard” for ~20 years and many TVs still ship with only 100 Mbps.
  • Other side: 2.5 GbE is now common on new motherboards/routers; 10 GbE and above are affordable used, and far more consistent than any Wi‑Fi.
• Wi‑Fi 6E’s 6 GHz band and upcoming Wi‑Fi 8 are noted; future standards are said to be shifting from pure peak speed toward reliability, latency (95th percentile), and robustness under interference.

Toyota’s solid-state announcement & timeline

• Reaction is split between excitement and “we’ve heard this before.”
• Commenters list prior Toyota claims (solid-state “by 2020,” “2021 debut,” etc.) and see 2027 as another moving target.
• Others argue that in car-development terms 2027 is “really soon,” noting: test cars reportedly exist, Japan’s METI has approved Toyota’s plans, and manufacturing partners/tooling are being named.

Credibility, PR, and strategic motives

• Many suspect the announcements are mostly PR/FUD: “breakthrough EV soon, don’t buy an EV today, keep buying our ICE/hybrids.”
• Some argue this strategy has “worked” commercially: record Toyota sales, strong hybrid demand, while many EV programs lose money.
• Counterpoint: this is normal R&D hype rather than a deliberate anti-EV conspiracy, and Toyota is large enough to pursue multiple tech bets.

Hydrogen vs BEVs

• Several express confusion at Toyota’s continued hydrogen push given poor infrastructure, storage/transport issues, and easier use of hydrocarbons.
• Some point to Japan’s energy situation (imported natural gas, hydrogen as a derivative) and past government enthusiasm (including California) as context.
• Majority sentiment in the thread: hydrogen passenger cars are a dead end; Toyota and the Japanese government suffered from “groupthink.”

What solid-state promises

• Claimed advantages:
  • Safety (no flammable liquid electrolyte, less risk of thermal runaway).
  • Higher energy density → lighter packs, more compact packaging.
  • Potentially faster charging, better performance in extreme temperatures, longer cycle life.
• One view: increased durability enables chemistries that currently degrade too fast.
• Skeptics note current Li-ion (especially LFP) is already “good enough” on range, longevity, and charge rates for most cars; cost is the real battleground.

1000-mile range debate

• Some see 1000 miles as overkill and prefer ~400 miles plus lower weight and cost.
• Others list use cases: towing, motorhomes, trucks/buses, emergency/service vehicles, cold climates, and urban drivers without home charging.
• Larger packs can accept higher power when fast-charging and provide more buffer for real-world conditions.

Cost, manufacturing, and market realities

• Key obstacle is cheap mass production, not lab prototypes; even big electronics firms only target tiny devices so far due to cost.
• Commenters highlight the long, painful ramp Tesla/Panasonic had with “conventional” cells and doubt a newcomer can match CATL/LG Chem on volume and price by 2027.
• Some expect solid-state to matter only if it is cost-competitive or licensed into existing large battery makers.

General reaction to EU platforms stopping political ads

• Many commenters welcome fewer political ads, describing them as manipulative, low‑information, and “pay‑to‑win.”
• Others see the move as symbolic or limited, because it doesn’t address propaganda via organic content, influencers, bots, and shell companies.
• Some note the irony that EU institutions themselves have been major buyers of political ads on these platforms.

Do political ads actually work?

• Several argue ads strongly influence elections, citing examples of last‑minute ad blitzes shifting referendum polls from ~50% to ~60%.
• Others claim individuals “don’t care” or aren’t swayed, but are challenged with: “then why do campaigns keep spending billions and measuring ROI?”
• There’s broad agreement that negative / “shit‑flinging” ads are especially effective.

Banning ads vs regulating formats and content

• One camp wants all (or nearly all) unsolicited ads banned, comparing their psychological impact to harmful manipulation.
• Opponents warn this entrenches incumbents: without advertising, new businesses and political entrants struggle to gain visibility.
• Middle‑ground proposals: ban specific categories (politics, tobacco, alcohol, medicine, religion) or intrusive formats (loud, full‑screen, public‑space billboards).

Defining “advertising” and “political”

• Major concern: where to draw the line. Is SEO, a portfolio website, a social media reel, product placement, or branded content “advertising”?
• For politics, many worry broad definitions could sweep in NGO campaigns, climate or poverty advocacy, even AIDS awareness.
• Examples are given of sustainability‑related ads already being rejected as “political,” seen as overreach or “malicious compliance.”
• One pragmatic criterion suggested: if money or equivalent value is paid to promote it, it’s an ad.

Influencers, bots, and astroturfing

• Multiple comments argue paid influencers and covert agenda‑pushing are now more important than explicit ads.
• Fears that banning formal political ads will push money into less transparent influencer ecosystems and anonymous astroturfing.

Democracy, free speech, and incumbency

• Some see restrictions as protecting democracy from billionaire and foreign interference; others see them as silencing populists and opposition.
• A recurring worry: powerful incumbents could ban “political ads,” then dominate attention through state media and “official” communication.
• Others counter that bans on specific advertising (e.g. cigarettes) have been workable and effective, suggesting political‑ad rules can also be enforced.

Metrics, Interviews, and “Legibility” of Talent

• Many commenters say common hiring signals (LeetCode, algorithm drills, buzzword stacks, GitHub activity) correlate poorly with who actually delivers value.
• Coding interviews are likened to the “streetlight effect”: we rigorously measure what’s easy (toy problems) instead of what matters (architecture, judgment, collaboration).
• Work trials are seen as more accurate but impractical and biased toward young/unemployed candidates.
• Several people note that even for “staff+” roles, companies default to the same commodity interview loop that’s detached from day‑to‑day work.

What Good Developers Look Like (and Don’t)

• Anecdotes highlight top engineers who look very different: self‑taught hackers vs academic high‑achievers; obsessive side‑project people vs strict 9‑to‑5 workers.
• There’s a strong distinction drawn between “brilliant programmers” and people who reliably deliver results in a team; these sets only partially overlap.
• Some argue exceptional devs are often underused or misdirected (e.g., pulled from hard systemic problems to generic urgent tasks), turning “10x” into “0.5x”.
• Others warn against mythologizing “stealth 10x” types and downplaying the role of HR and structured processes.

Side Projects, Passion, and Expectations

• Multiple commenters push back on the idea that real talent requires coding outside work. Many stop once careers and families mature, or shift hobbies away from screens.
• Interview questions about off‑hours projects are debated: some see them as harmless chances to surface extra experience; others see them as inappropriate, coercive, or even legally risky.

Environment, Management, and Recognition

• People report huge performance differences based on environment: private offices vs open plans, autonomy vs top‑down control, space to fix real problems vs being forced to “look busy.”
• Preventative work (avoiding crises, building robust systems) is described as high‑value yet mostly invisible in reviews and promotion processes, which favor visible heroics and “playing the game.”

“Illegible” vs “Invisible”

• Several comments dissect the title term: “illegible” (from Seeing Like a State) is defended as meaning “exists, but can’t be parsed by large organizations’ metrics,” as opposed to truly “invisible.”
• Some find the word trendy or overwrought, preferring “intangible” or “inscrutable,” but others argue it captures the mismatch between real value and what institutions can easily read.

Risk, Markets, and Alternatives

• Some see hiring as a “Market for Lemons”: noisy signals push high‑quality people out of broad markets into trusted sub‑networks, referrals, or long‑term gigs.
• Startups are framed as “talent arbitrage”: founders poach undervalued but proven colleagues.
• A provocative suggestion to use AI to score individual workers on their output is widely criticized as impractical, ethically dubious, and blind to crucial but hard‑to‑quantify skills.

Networking and “No Presence” Careers

• Several strong engineers report having no online profile, minimal public code, and careers built entirely on word‑of‑mouth and ex‑colleagues.
• Commenters stress the importance of maintaining professional relationships as a hedge against being illegible to resume filters and external metrics.