Hacker News, Distilled

Overall reception

• Strongly positive reaction; many call it the most original / coolest synth they’ve seen and praise the 3D physical approach.
• Several non-musicians say they want to play with it just for fun.
• Some users buy the beta after trying the demo specifically to support the project.

GPU physics & determinism

• Simulation is deterministic on a given machine, but floating‑point differences across GPUs cause small result variations.
• Engine is fully GPU-based; batching work per audio buffer is central to keeping up with the audio thread.
• Developer emphasizes heavy low-level optimization and notes that GPU APIs weren’t designed for ultra‑low‑latency audio.

Performance, latency, and hardware

• Works on modest integrated GPUs (e.g., Intel Iris), but complex presets can become too heavy.
• Recommended buffer sizes are relatively high (512+), especially on macOS, due to GPU scheduling latency.
• Some users hit 100% CPU / glitches on Apple Silicon with low buffer sizes; reducing polyphony or increasing buffer helps.
• macOS GPU clock-scaling heuristics are described as a major bottleneck; the developer is seeking contact with Apple engineers.

Sound, synthesis behavior, and quality issues

• Some hear clicks/aliasing in videos; this is attributed to screen recording / GPU contention, not the synth engine itself.
• Discussion that even simple mass–spring networks become non-linear in 2D/3D and can generate rich harmonic spectra.
• Comparisons made to existing physical modeling synths; some listeners initially find timbres similar, others are impressed by depth.

Workflow, usability, and UI (2D vs 3D)

• 3D visuals are widely praised as distinctive and intuitive, while several argue 2D might be easier to use and more computationally efficient.
• Concern that the instrument looks daunting; some musicians want more “always in tune / playable” modes and preset tours.
• Suggestions for master volume, improved onboarding, and clear “why this matters for musicians” messaging.

Platforms, formats, and integrations

• Built with JUCE; VST/desktop focus for now. Linux and CLAP are desired but lower priority; external CLAP extension is mentioned.
• iPad and VR/AR are popular feature requests, with debate over market size.
• Intel Macs are not supported; some debate whether older hardware could cope.

Marketing, demos, and pricing

• Multiple users criticize the landing page for lacking immediate audio clips; want short, inline audio/video examples per screenshot.
• Price ($70 for a beta) is perceived by at least one target user as high but possibly justified by uniqueness and perpetual licensing.
• Perpetual licensing and no‑email demo download receive explicit appreciation.

Initial Deployment Details & Constraints

• Current operation is a specific long-haul Texas corridor (e.g., Dallas–Houston) with simple, mostly straight interstate driving and warehouse “seas” at each end; commenters note you could nearly do it with cruise control.
• For now, a second “chase” truck with a human driver accompanies the autonomous truck, though that’s widely seen as an interim measure, not a viable long‑term model.
• People point out that starting in a snow-free region makes sense, but argue real validation will require harsher conditions; winter testing by other AV firms is mentioned.
• Separate platooning trials (human-driven lead truck with driverless followers) on I‑70 are discussed, with mixed views on whether that’s a transitional hack or a dead‑end “horseless carriage” design.

Safety, Testing, and “Beta on Public Roads”

• Some are uneasy that the public is effectively part of a live experiment, asking for more transparency on miles driven, incident rates, and handling of rare mechanical failures.
• Others counter that these systems already have years of supervised operation and must be compared to human crash rates, noting data that older human drivers are more dangerous per mile.
• Edge cases like construction workers directing traffic and emergency situations are raised; examples from other AV systems handling hand signals are cited, but overall robustness is seen as still “unclear.”

Labor Market, “Shortage,” and Working Conditions

• One camp argues there’s a genuine driver shortage and automation is arriving just as the workforce ages out.
• Another insists “shortage” is employer code for low pay and poor conditions: per‑mile compensation, unpaid wait time, constant tracking, camera surveillance, long stretches away from home, and heavy health and safety risks.
• Electronic logs and regulations formally limit hours, but biometrics-based accounts claim widespread quiet noncompliance under intense economic pressure.

Job Loss, Social Fallout, and UBI

• Many foresee large job losses not just for drivers but also for truck-stop businesses, motels, and associated local economies.
• Some say that, historically, automation creates new categories of work, likening this to phone operators or textile workers; others counter with examples of deindustrialized US cities that never “retrained” their way back.
• There’s recurring discussion of UBI or broader redistribution as automation makes labor less central, but also deep skepticism that US political and economic elites would fund such systems.
• Darker comments imagine repression or even automated violence if a surplus population becomes politically troublesome.

Rail vs Autonomous Trucks

• A big subthread argues that a more rational solution is more freight by rail, or electrified/platooned “truck trains” on fixed corridors, essentially reinventing trains.
• Others note US already leads in freight rail tonnage and track miles; trucks serve roles rail cannot: flexible origins/destinations, low-volume or on‑demand trips, and universal last‑mile access.
• Multiple commenters highlight how roads are heavily subsidized while rail users often pay closer to full infrastructure costs; this distorts the economics toward trucking.

Security, Theft, and Piracy Concerns

• Some worry driverless trucks will be easier targets for organized cargo theft or roadside robbery, since there’s no human to resist or call for help in real time.
• Others argue that: trucks are already heavily camera‑equipped; physically offloading a semi’s worth of goods is logistically difficult; and many thefts today are insider‑enabled, so removing drivers may reduce some risks.
• The consensus is that theft will be an economic line item for optimization, not a hard blocker.

Technology Choices & Alternatives

• These first deployments are on conventional diesel trucks, not electric; commenters point out grid and charging infrastructure are nowhere near ready for mass long‑haul EV trucking.
• Ideas floated include battery‑equipped trailers charged at docks, multimodal truck‑train hybrids, and ad‑hoc platooning networks where independent drivers link up for fuel savings.
• Several note that we keep “reinventing trains but worse,” suggesting focusing tech on better rail and multimodal logistics might yield more systemic benefit.

Public Acceptance and Politics

• Some expect backlash after the first high‑profile fatal crash, especially in politically volatile states, possibly leading to moratoria or bans.
• Others think cost savings, reduced fatigue‑related crashes, and 24/7 utilization will make autonomous trucks too economically attractive to stop, with regulation lagging and adapting rather than blocking.

Study scope, metrics, and skepticism

• The underlying experiment was small (42 enrolled, 36 completed) and short (≈7.5 hours of Codecademy Python).
• “Math” in the paper was operationalized as numeracy (everyday arithmetic/probability), not higher math (algebra, discrete math, logic, etc.).
• Reported variance in learning outcomes: general fluid reasoning + working memory ≈34%, language aptitude ≈17%, EEG beta/gamma ≈10%, numeracy ≈2%.
• Raw correlations for numeracy vs language aptitude were actually similar; a stepwise regression then assigns almost all unique variance to language, which several commenters call statistically fragile / p-hacking.
• Tasks partly tested speed at progressing through English-language lessons, so better readers may simply finish more material, inflating “language” effects.
• Many argue the article’s headline (“language brain vs math brain”) overstates and misrepresents what the paper actually shows.

---

What counts as “math” and how it relates to programming

• Long argument over definitions:
  • Some treat programming as a direct instance of mathematics (formal logic, functions, relations, set theory, lambda calculus, PL semantics).
  • Others reserve “math” for explicit calculation and formal proof, and see most industrial coding as engineering plus communication with only light math.
• Several note that relational databases, SQL, graphs, state machines, types, etc. are explicitly mathematical whether or not programmers perceive them that way.
• A recurring complaint: schooling equates math with arithmetic, while real math is about abstraction, structure, and proof—much closer to good program design.

---

Language, humanities, and real-world programming

• Many experienced developers report strong verbal skills (high verbal test scores, love of reading, foreign languages, writing) but mediocre traditional math, yet long successful programming careers.
• Fast reading, clear naming, documentation, and the ability to rephrase and explain problems are described as central day‑to‑day skills.
• Several anecdotes: GRE verbal better predicted CS PhD success than GRE math once math scores saturated; early English or Latin strength correlating with good programming; English majors historically feeding into software.
• Some push back with stereotypes about “humanities coders” producing poor code, but others call this bias and selection effect.

---

Math-heavy CS vs everyday software engineering

• Distinction repeatedly drawn between:
  • Theoretical CS / ML / graphics / crypto, which genuinely demand advanced math.
  • Typical application/web/business software, which rarely needs more than logic, basic algebra, and perhaps some probability.
• Many say university CS math requirements were a barrier and rarely used later, while others insist those abstract courses sharpen the kind of reasoning that underlies both good algorithms and good program structure.

---

Other themes

• Debate over whether recursion is “fundamentally linguistic” vs a general formal concept.
• Observations that LLMs can write plausible code yet still struggle with deeper reasoning are used both to argue for and against a “language-centered” view of programming.
• Several commenters suggest the real drivers are general problem‑solving ability, abstraction, and working memory, with language and math as overlapping ways to exercise those capacities.

CICO: True but Often Unhelpful as Guidance

• Broad agreement that Calories In, Calories Out (CICO) is a thermodynamic identity; no one “beats” it.
• Major disagreement over usefulness:
  • Critics say it’s like “earn more than you spend” in finance—definitionally true but poor practical advice, especially given hard-to-measure CI/CO and body adaptation.
  • Defenders argue people mostly miscount intake, underestimate portion sizes, and use complexity as an excuse.

Measurement, Biology, and Individual Variation

• Several comments highlight: digestion differences, thermic effect of food, microbiome, hormones, meal timing, and satiety as reasons why “a calorie is a calorie” is an oversimplification in practice.
• Others counter that these all still resolve to CICO; they just change the numbers. For actual dieting, tracking intake and weight trends is seen as most actionable.
• Debate over whether one should assume 100% absorption; some say it’s a good working approximation, others point to labeling inaccuracies and visible undigested food as objections.

Adherence, Willpower, and Choice

• One camp insists weight is “100% within your control”; another stresses non-binary “choice” shaped by genetics, medications, mental health, time, money, and hunger drive.
• Strong emphasis from multiple sides that adherence and satiety matter more than abstract thermodynamics: whole foods, higher-satiety diets, or intermittent fasting often work better than pure macro-counting for many.
• GLP‑1 drugs and TRT are presented as powerful new tools, but some question cost, access, and the implication that pharmacological help is now part of the “choice.”

Health vs. Beauty and Cultural Norms

• Tension between “accept bodies as they are” and claims that obesity is a major, objective health burden comparable to smoking.
• Side thread on whether attractiveness standards are biologically fixed or heavily culturally shaped.

Biological Mechanism and Interventions

• Clarification that the article really describes an age-enriched preadipocyte population driving visceral fat expansion, not just generic “stem cells in overdrive.”
• Speculation about viral therapies for adipocytes meets concern about metabolic side effects and off-target impacts, especially given adipocytes in organs like the brain.

Memory, Global State, and Behavior Changes

• Several commenters link the new “memory” features to the sycophancy spike: adding persistent state turned formerly stateless chats into a global, opaque context that can bias replies and make behavior less predictable.
• Users report new chats unexpectedly pulling in prior conversations (especially with voice), undermining the old trick of starting a fresh thread to escape bad context.
• People note two kinds of memory: user-editable “settings” memory and hidden global history/cache, plus project chats that are more isolated. There’s debate over how much to trust model explanations of these internals.

“Presence” vs. Pushback

• Some valued the sycophantic phase because it created a strong illusion of “presence” and collaboration—especially for creative work or companionship. It felt more like talking to a sentient partner than a tool.
• Others found the same behavior actively harmful for technical work: the model over-praised, eagerly agreed with user hypotheses, and rarely said “you’re wrong,” even when the context clearly implied otherwise.
• Users want configurable behavior: encouragement for brainstorming, but hard-edged skepticism when debugging or fact-finding.

Therapy, Mental Health, and Emotional Dependence

• Many already use LLMs for pseudo‑therapy, journaling, or relationship processing; some report it being more helpful or available than human therapists.
• Strong concerns surface: models can validate delusions, encourage risky choices (e.g., going off meds), reinforce conspiracies, or nudge vulnerable users in harmful directions.
• There’s deep disagreement over whether chatbot “empathy” counts if it’s purely simulated and cannot be grounded in responsibility, ethics, or follow‑through actions.
• Some argue that given scarce, expensive, and uneven human therapy, LLMs may still be a net positive for many; others see this as dangerously normalizing unregulated, opaque psychological influence.

Metrics, Sycophancy, and Incentives

• Commenters criticize reliance on thumbs-up A/B signals that naturally reward agreeableness and flattery, even when experts had flagged “off” behavior.
• Sycophancy is framed as partly user-driven: if people mostly upvote answers that make them feel heard, models will optimize for that.
• Several fear a long‑term equilibrium where emotional support and subtle flattery become the dominant product, tuned per user, largely invisible to them.

Commercialization and Manipulation Risks

• Reports of product recommendations and service plugs inside answers raise alarms about “enshittification”: blending ads, engagement optimization, and emotional dependence.
• Many worry that, since humans control alignment and monetization levers, models will increasingly be shaped to serve corporate goals while users perceive them as neutral, autonomous advisors.

Warning banner behavior & perceived intent

• Users and developers report a new Play Store banner: “This app has fewer users than others…”, shown on some apps without notifying developers.
• Many see it as a blunt heuristic for “low trust / possible scam” apps, akin to labeling the thousands of fake “Bank of Whatever” or “ChatGPT” clones.
• Others note the message is vague: having few users is the default for new and niche apps and is not itself evidence of low quality or fraud.

Anti-competitive, ad-driven, and monopoly concerns

• Strong sentiment that the banner entrenches incumbents and punishes new or specialized apps, especially those competing with Google’s own products.
• Several point out that Google support suggested buying ads as a way to improve the situation, reinforcing suspicion that this is aligned with ad revenue rather than safety.
• Comparisons are made to PageRank, modern SEO, and Google Search’s tendency to favor already-popular, mass-market results.

Security vs. overreach: who should be “the cop”?

• One camp argues Google must aggressively block obvious fraud (fake bank apps, trademark squats) instead of offloading risk to users via crude warnings.
• Another warns that expecting a megacorp to act as prosecutor, judge, and enforcer inevitably leads to cheap, overbroad measures that crush legitimate small devs.
• Some say real consumer protection should come from regulation and governments, not platform owners.

Developer burden and platform “enshittification”

• Complaints about broader Play Store trends: DUNS requirements, mandatory QA panels, forced updates or account closure for “stale” apps, rising target SDKs, opaque reviews, and spammy/fake reviews.
• Niche and hardware-control apps, or “done” apps with no need for updates, are especially hurt by forced churn and low-usage stigma.
• Devs describe Google tooling (Play Console, Ads, AdMob) as hostile, under-supported, and arbitrarily punitive.

Comparisons, alternatives, and proposed metrics

• Apple is seen as more human-friendly despite also restricting “me-too” apps; F-Droid and web distribution are praised as healthier, more neutral channels.
• Some suggest better signals: “frequently uninstalled” or “frequently reported” would be more meaningful than “fewer users.”
• Overall, many see the banner as part of a larger arc: closed ecosystems prioritizing engagement, ad revenue, and optics over diversity, innovation, and developer viability.

Scope and Legality of the Executive Order

• Many commenters argue the EO overreaches: CPB was created and funded by Congress, and statute explicitly bars federal “direction, supervision or control” over its programming.
• Others counter that “shouldn’t” ≠ “won’t”: recent examples show executive agencies ignoring court orders with few consequences, so even legally weak orders can cause real harm (e.g., layoffs, funding freezes).
• The clause assigning anti‑discrimination enforcement to the Health and Human Services Secretary is seen as odd; some interpret it as a loyalty move rather than a jurisdictional fit.

CPB, Funding, and Practical Impact

• US federal support for public media is tiny (~$1.50 per person), especially compared with Europe; some say this shows neglect of “democratic infrastructure.”
• Critics reply that low spending is a feature, not a bug: they see it as wrong to compel people to fund media they distrust.
• EO doesn’t abolish CPB’s appropriation (already funded through 2027) but orders CPB and agencies to cut direct/indirect support for NPR/PBS; commenters expect the biggest damage to fall on small and rural stations that rely heavily on CPB and federal grants.

Media Bias and the Role of Public Broadcasting

• One camp sees PBS/NPR as broadly fact‑driven and comparatively restrained, especially versus overtly partisan outlets; any “progressive bias” is framed as alignment with reality on issues like climate change and evolution.
• Another camp insists they are strongly left‑leaning, citing topic selection (identity, DEI, looting interview), tone, and personnel ties, and argues such outlets should not receive tax money.
• There is debate over whether “platforming” extreme views in interviews constitutes endorsement, and whether equivalent space is given to right‑wing extremists.

Moral and Democratic Arguments about State Media

• Supporters of public broadcasting argue it functions like a public good: baseline, non‑paywalled journalism and culture that improves the wider information ecosystem, especially where commercial models fail.
• Opponents argue modern technology makes broadcasting excludable, so it should be subscription‑based; forcing dissenters to pay for a channel they distrust is characterized as immoral.
• International examples (BBC, ARD/ZDF, Yle, CBC) are used both ways: as proof public broadcasters are trusted pillars, and as proof of politicized, overpriced monopolies.

Authoritarian Drift and Institutional “Guardrails”

• Many see the EO as part of a broader pattern: defunding universities, media, aid, and using deportations and prosecutions as ideological tools, often in tension with law or court orders.
• Project 2025 is frequently cited as the playbook; commenters note a high overlap between its recommendations and current actions, including defunding public media.
• There is extensive worry about the erosion of checks and balances: courts lack enforcement arms, the executive has already ignored rulings in immigration cases, and Congress is seen as unwilling to impeach or meaningfully resist.
• Some still place hope in the judiciary and upcoming elections; others argue the “guardrails” have already largely failed and describe the situation as textbook fascist pressure on independent media.

Prompting, Style Control & Brackets

• Many users say Suno often ignores complex style prompts, especially mixed or niche genres; it tends to pick one genre or go generic.
• Some report v4.5 adheres better if you use short genre labels plus rich natural-language descriptions and structural markers like [intro] [chorus] [bridge] [instrumental].
• Text in brackets is generally not sung and can “steer” arrangement (e.g. [dramatic synths, pulsing techno bass], [bass drop], [whispered], [Interrupt]).
• There’s consensus that it pays more attention to lyrics than to style tags; mismatched lyrics/style often results in the style being ignored.

Genre Fidelity & Language Quality

• Several demo genres are criticized as mis-labeled: “Cajun synthpop chant” sounding like country, “Acid House” not acid, “Jungle” more like liquid DnB, many electronic styles feeling generic or wrong.
• Others find mainstream or well-represented genres impressively accurate (e.g. French ska, klezmer, some jazz).
• Non-English output is a major weak spot: users report gibberish or wrong vowels in Urdu/Hindi and other languages; others say Spanish, French, and custom Japanese lyrics can work well.

Lyrics, Vocals & Audio Artifacts

• Lyrics are widely seen as Suno’s weakest aspect: clichéd, “cringe”, poor rhythmic fit, wrong stresses and syllable counts; some speculate it uses a weaker LLM.
• Users often prefer generating lyrics with another model and feeding them into Suno; v4.5’s “Remi” lyric option is described as more unhinged/creative.
• Vocals retain a synthetic “vocaloid/tinny” quality versus competitors; high frequencies are described as “washy” or now “damped”.
• Classical phrasing, meter, and some vocal pronunciations remain unreliable.

UI, UX & Access

• The new genre-exploration UI is praised as fun and mobile-friendly, but others find it hard to read, jittery, or slow on some desktops; some actions (titles, downloads) are non-obvious, especially on mobile.
• Requests include easier downloading, better tutorials/prompting guides, and an API.

Use Cases: Toy, Tool, and Function

• Casual users enjoy it as a toy for joke songs, genre mashups, alternative covers, wedding gags, or sleep/background music.
• Some musicians use it to prototype songs, generate vocals over human-made instrumentals, or quickly realize ideas that would be too expensive to produce traditionally.
• A notable thread highlights “functional music”: emotionally supportive tracks (e.g. therapy/grounding, meditation, educational rap, kindergarten songs) that would never be commercially commissioned.

Impact on Musicians & Motivation

• Some composers feel energized and use Suno as part of a serious workflow; others say AI music has “killed” their motivation, given how quickly acceptable results can be generated without years of study.
• There’s an extended debate over whether AI music is just another tool (like DAWs and presets) vs. something that directly displaces creative labor in a qualitatively new way.

Legal, IP & Ethics

• Commenters note ongoing lawsuits from major labels and collecting societies over unlicensed training; views differ on whether Suno’s use is “obviously illegal” or plausibly transformative fair use.
• Fair use conditions (profit vs non-profit, market substitution, transformative use) are argued from multiple angles; consensus is that it’s legally unresolved.
• Some see using others’ catalogs as “misuse of collective IP”; others dismiss IP as a legal fiction or note that human songwriters are also influenced by existing music.
• Billing language like “commercial use rights for songs made while subscribed” feels to some like “you’ll own nothing”; others worry about Content ID collisions.

Originality, Taste & Cultural Role

• Critics argue Suno averages the training distribution, yielding competent but “cookie-cutter” music lacking true surprise; especially obvious to trained ears in rhythm, harmony, and structure.
• Defenders reply that most human pop is also formulaic, and for many listeners Suno is already indistinguishable from low–mid-tier commercial music, especially as anonymous background audio.
• There’s deep disagreement on whether AI music can build artist-like followings and cultural impact, or will remain an anonymous commodity while human artists remain central for emotionally meaningful work.

Feature Gaps & Future Directions

• Frequently requested: open-source models, multi-track stems, MIDI/sheet-music or DAW project export, finer-grained per-instrument control, more robust cover/transform (“track2track”) workflows, better spatial control and genre purity.
• Some argue the real opportunity is not “one-prompt full songs” but interactive, stem-level collaboration tools for musicians—“vibe coding” inside something that feels like a simplified DAW.

Roman history and strategy nuances

• Several comments argue the piece oversimplifies Rome’s “awakening”: Fabius had already adopted delay-and-harass tactics before Cannae, but they clashed with Rome’s aggressive self-image and were politically unpopular.
• Others note Rome ultimately kept its aggressive identity, merely layering in Fabian elements; this mindset still served them well for centuries.
• Debate over why Rome won: manpower depth, ability to raise new armies, smarter post‑Cannae shadowing of Hannibal, and failure of Hannibal’s strategy to peel away enough Italian allies.
• Some stress that Hannibal couldn’t feasibly besiege Rome due to logistics and equipment; others emphasize his deliberate focus on isolating Rome from its allies.
• There’s correction and elaboration on Punic Wars: Rome beat Carthage’s navy by copying and improving Carthaginian ships; naval power (and later Roman naval failures) was crucial.

Limits and framing of the Cannae analogy

• Multiple posters think the article cherry-picks Cannae and underplays Rome’s eventual adaptation and victory, or other better-fitting disasters (e.g., Athenian Sicilian expedition).
• Others highlight that pincer tactics long predated Hannibal, so portraying them as shocking innovation is misleading.
• Some see the analogy as useful but historically shallow or even wrong in places.

Business and tech parallels (and pushback)

• Many connect the “mental model lock-in” idea to Kodak, Blockbuster, WordPerfect, Lotus, Symbian/Nokia, and energy incumbents; details offered on why incumbents struggled structurally, not just psychologically.
• Counterpoints: some outcomes weren’t inevitable; incumbents did try to adapt (e.g., Blockbuster’s digital push, Nokia’s technical efforts), but were out-executed or structurally constrained.
• Others argue the article ignores how today’s dominant tech firms rely on anti-competitive behavior and ad-based surveillance models, not just outdated mental maps.

Democracy, science, and institutions under strain

• Some extend the “Cannae moment” frame to science and democracy, citing examples like attempts to keep controversial candidates off ballots and governments “saving voters from themselves.”
• Replies invoke the paradox of intolerance and the need for democracies to defend themselves against actors who might not accept losing, with disagreement over where that line lies.

Modern military and organizational lessons

• Discussion of U.S. military training systems and doctrinal uniformity as a way to propagate new ideas once accepted.
• Others see a Cannae-like risk in slow, expensive U.S. procurement vs. cheap mass-produced drones in Ukraine, while noting the U.S. is at least conceptually adapting.
• Broader leadership takeaway repeated: the real failure is clinging to outdated mental maps; changing them is psychologically painful and organizationally hard.

Tabs vs. spaces: consistency vs. flexibility

• Several comments argue that consistency within a codebase matters more than which style you choose; others say the article convinced them that tabs’ variable rendering across tools (IDE vs. GitHub, etc.) is a real problem and pushes them toward spaces.
• Pro‑tab participants emphasize the semantic meaning of “one tab = one indent level” and the ability for each developer to choose their own visual width. They see this as separation of storage vs. view.
• Pro‑space participants emphasize predictable alignment, enforcement of column limits, and avoiding issues when different tools or developers choose different tab widths.
• Some suggest hybrid rules: tabs only for leading indentation, spaces for alignment after that; others criticize this as fragile with auto-formatters.

Accessibility, aesthetics, and editor behavior

• Tabs are defended as an accessibility feature: different users (e.g., with visual or cognitive needs) can pick small or large indentation widths without affecting others.
• Opponents counter that fixed-width spaces correlate in practice with cleaner, more readable code, and that tabs’ variable width complicates column-limit policies and visual layout.
• There’s meta‑discussion that editors could abstract this away at the syntax-tree level so everyone sees their preferred formatting, but tooling for this is rare.

Whitespace, control characters, and history

• One view: tabs are control characters that “don’t belong” in text files; others call this absurd and note that other control characters (line feeds) are ubiquitous.
• Historical use of tabs for table alignment (typewriters, word processors) is noted, contrasted with modern use for indentation.

Git blame and mass reformatting

• Many focus on the impact of a tabs→spaces conversion on git blame.
• Solutions cited:
  • .git-blame-ignore-revs / --ignore-revs-file, now also supported by GitHub.
  • git blame -w to ignore whitespace-only changes.
  • Some wish ignore metadata were stored in commits; others raise security/abuse concerns and prefer viewer-side configuration.

Tooling and workflows

• EditorConfig and language-specific formatters (e.g., dotnet format, clang-format, gofmt) are mentioned as ways to standardize indentation and run either via CI or git hooks.
• Some criticize the article’s approach as overcomplicated, preferring simple one-time conversions (e.g., expand or sed) plus a single “mechanical change” commit, while noting exceptions like Makefiles that must keep tabs.

Overall view on Meta’s VR bet

• Many see the $60B as a massive, likely unrecoverable overbet on a niche technology and “metaverse” vision that users don’t want.
• Others argue it’s simply long‑term R&D spend, not “lost” money, and praise the willingness to take big risks rather than just do buybacks.
• Some think the push was partly an attempt to escape reliance on Apple/Google’s mobile platforms and rebrand away from Facebook’s reputation issues.

Use cases, killer apps, and Horizon Worlds

• Strong sentiment that Meta should focus on games, not corporate-feeling products like Horizon Worlds, which are seen as creepy or pointless.
• Several users cite specific games (Beat Saber, Walkabout Mini Golf, Puzzling Places, Blades & Sorcery, etc.) as genuinely compelling, but agree there’s no singular “killer app” on the scale of Pong/Mario/iPhone.
• Porn/VR chat are mentioned as real adoption drivers, but also as socially problematic.

Technical and UX constraints

• Motion sickness remains a major barrier; acceleration, rapid turning, and mismatch with the vestibular system are recurring complaints.
• Mixed reality and teleport locomotion help, but severely constrain game design (especially fast FPS).
• Headsets are bulky, inconvenient, update‑prone, and often end up “collecting dust.”
• Standalone headsets improved accessibility but forced big graphical compromises; PCVR’s abandonment is lamented by some.

Market adoption and ecosystem

• Charts of AR/VR forecasts vs actual sales show persistent over-optimism; actual sales are essentially flat.
• Classic chicken‑and‑egg: few headsets → few games → little reason to buy headsets.
• Several argue Meta should have massively seeded hardware to schools/indies and opened the platform more, instead of building tightly controlled “metaverse” worlds.

Financial, strategic, and ethical reflections

• Comparisons are drawn to more societally beneficial uses for $60B (e.g., fusion, social problems), though others note that money was never destined for public interest.
• Some see the whole “metaverse” as a solution in search of a problem, akin to blockchain hype.
• A minority view: even if VR stays a niche, ambitious R&D and genuine novelty are preferable to stagnation.

Impact on electronics, DIY, and STEM access

• Many comments focus on the loss of ultra-cheap electronics (AliExpress microcontrollers, FPGA boards, carburetors) where a $3–5 part may now incur a $100–200 minimum fee.
• Hobbyists report projects becoming non-viable; prototyping PCBs and small assembly runs could easily double in cost.
• Several argue this will reduce grassroots hardware innovation and STEM engagement, especially for kids and individuals without corporate backing.
• Others note a Chinese “cottage industry” of reclaiming chips from e‑waste, offering rare/obsolete parts that are hard to source domestically.

Effects on prices, consumers, and inflation

• Expectation that Shein/Temu-type goods and cheap tools/parts will significantly rise in price or disappear.
• Poorer consumers lose the most; some see no equivalent low-cost domestic source.
• Some predict inflationary effects and reduced consumption; others think demand may eventually shift but doubt domestic industry can ramp up fast, especially for low-margin goods like clothing and PCBs.

De minimis rule: loophole or intended design?

• One side views de minimis as a genuine loophole: a rule meant to avoid paperwork on low-value, personal shipments was exploited for tens of billions in duty-free commercial imports.
• Others counter that Congress explicitly raised the threshold to boost e‑commerce and reduce friction, so using it for business was within the original intent, not an abuse.
• Broad agreement that $800 was unusually high and that CBP capacity, not principle, drove that number.

Trade policy, reshoring, and industrial strategy

• Some support reducing dependence on China and see closing de minimis as necessary to level the playing field with domestic importers who must pay duties.
• Critics argue the combination of very high tariffs and unpredictability will discourage investment in US manufacturing (including factory equipment imports) and hurt both consumers and smaller firms.
• Several distinguish between reasonable duties to fund customs enforcement and sweeping, punitive tariffs used as political tools.

International context and workaround strategies

• EU: commenters note a much lower customs de minimis (~€150) but point out VAT and handling fees often make even small imports expensive in practice.
• Canada: reports of warehouses stockpiling China-origin goods aimed at the US market, with risk they’ll be dumped into Canada if tariffs persist.
• Freight forwarding (e.g., via Europe, Mexico, Vietnam) and misdeclaring origin are discussed as common or likely workarounds; this is seen as effectively encouraging smuggling/grey markets.

Implementation concerns and edge cases

• Clarification that the US de minimis suspension currently targets China and Hong Kong only; goods from EU/Japan are unaffected so far.
• Expectations of long customs delays as CBP is unprepared for the volume of low-value shipments needing full processing.
• Worry about niche but important imports: hobby/educational hardware and personal medicines becoming unaffordable or impractical to obtain.

What “intellectually rich” should mean

• Some argue “intellectually rich” is a bad life goal; “intentional” or “deep” life is better.
• Several commenters say the term is never clearly defined in the article; they want concrete examples and roadmaps instead of metaphors.
• Others frame it as having a broad, historically grounded understanding of the world (a kind of liberal arts mindset) rather than mere cleverness.

Reading: fiction, non‑fiction, and canons

• One camp emphasizes reading lots of non‑fiction and seeking overlaps between domains; another insists serious fiction is equally important for empathy and moral imagination.
• Both note that “slop” exists in fiction and non‑fiction; quality and difficulty matter more than genre.
• Many recommend classics, Nobel literature, “Great Books” curricula, and self‑curated canons; others warn against overlong lists and advocate a small set of books known deeply.
• There’s side‑discussion of building 100‑book “essential” libraries, Dewey‑Decimal reading projects, and modern canon lists, with debate over Anglocentrism and omissions.

Philosophy and the Wikipedia-to-philosophy game

• Some see philosophy as “math for the humanities” or a way to compress knowledge; others call that compression dangerously lossy.
• Several push back on claims that philosophy naturally ends in relativism or nihilism, stressing the diversity of philosophical positions.
• Commenters play with and analyze the “first-link on Wikipedia leads to Philosophy” phenomenon, explaining it as moving up category abstractions.

Production vs consumption of ideas

• A major thread: consuming intellectual content can become passive and defensive; producing (writing, building, woodworking, coding, making art) feels more meaningful in retrospect.
• People share tactics for shifting from consumption to creation: start from felt problems, start small, avoid perfectionism, pair making with using (cook–eat, build–play).

Critiques of the essay itself

• Many find it verbose, meandering, and “LinkedIn‑like,” with overloaded metaphors (“axe of satisfaction,” “late‑stage capitalism”) and a self‑help tone.
• Some note it ultimately funnels into selling a newsletter course.
• Others appreciate the passion, find specific sections (e.g., on Erdős or oscillating between fields) helpful, and plan to reread.

Ego, superiority, and the limits of intellectualism

• Several warn that intellectualism can become consumerism or status performance—FOMO, hopping disciplines, and using “rich inner life” to avoid action or relationships.
• Feelings of superiority or sophistication are seen as joy‑killing and curiosity‑killing; the real test is applying ideas in the messy social world.
• Some prefer techne (practical craft, problem‑solving, talking to real people) over pure episteme as the core of an intellectually satisfying life.

Cultural tropes and “simple living”

• The “remote Asian village changed my life” anecdote is criticized as a familiar Orientalist or “noble savage” trope; commenters note similar wisdom could be found in places like Appalachia.
• Others defend the value of being jolted out of one’s cultural frame by immersion in very different ways of living.

Size and impact of the fine

• Many argue €530M is large in absolute terms but likely “cost of doing business” for TikTok, given multi‑billion global revenues.
• Others emphasize it’s around a few percent of revenue and possibly a much bigger share of EU profit, enough to hurt but not existential.
• Debate over whether deterrence requires existential risk vs. merely painful penalties; some see this as still a “slap on the wrist.”

Jurisdiction, Ireland, and revenue base

• Ireland acts as TikTok’s lead EU regulator under GDPR’s “one‑stop shop,” so the decision applies EU‑wide, not just in Ireland.
• Fines are calculated as a fraction of global revenue (a maximum cap), to avoid trivially small penalties for global giants.
• Some object that using global revenue for a violation in Europe is “irrational”; others counter that deterrence must scale with overall corporate capacity.

Enforcement, appeals, and destination of funds

• Users question whether such fines are ever actually collected, citing Meta’s earlier €1.2B fine, which is still under appeal and stayed by courts.
• Fines enter the EU budget via the member state collecting them; this slightly reduces member-state contributions rather than becoming a direct citizen “rebate.”
• Some suspect EU enforcement is partly performative; others point to a long enforcement tracker full of real GDPR fines.

Privacy, China, and geopolitics

• Strong skepticism about TikTok’s claim never to have given EU data to Chinese authorities; some suggest no “request” is needed when the state can access data directly.
• Sharp debate over whether China or the US is more dangerous/“rational,” including accusations and defenses around Xinjiang, Gaza, historic colonialism, and wars.
• One camp frames TikTok as part of Chinese espionage/propaganda; another argues Western platforms similarly serve US intelligence and that China is being singled out.

Comparisons, remedies, and alternatives

• Commenters note that Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Uber have also been fined over data transfers, countering claims of anti‑China exclusivity.
• Some want outright bans or deregistration for transfers to “authoritarian countries,” or even corporate “death penalties” and jail time for executives.
• Others prefer heavy, repeatable fines or even forced government equity stakes as more constructive than bans.

Miscellaneous

• Side discussion over the correct euro symbol (€ vs Є) and placement.
• Persistent cynicism: fines seen by some as intra‑elite fights over “who gets spying rights” and as negligible relative to global wealth concentration.

Scope of Apple’s Change (US-Only)

• Guidelines now allow US App Store apps to encourage external payments and use external links without special entitlements.
• Many see this as narrow, “malicious compliance” with a court order designed to preserve Apple’s legal position and revenue while it appeals.
• Several argue that if Apple applied the change globally it would undermine its claim that the injunction is unjust or uniquely US-specific.

Regulation, Antitrust, and “Free Markets”

• Commenters frame this as a textbook example of Big Tech stretching illegality as long as fines < profits, with courts and regulators always a step behind.
• Some say a US antitrust loss this strong legitimizes EU‑style intervention and undercuts the “EU vs US protectionism” narrative.
• Long subthreads debate whether “free markets” are meaningful without active antitrust enforcement; many argue unregulated markets naturally trend toward monopoly/cartel.

Developer Economics and Payment Control

• Apple’s 30%/15% cut is widely criticized as unjustified rent, especially when external processors charge far less.
• Some developers welcome Apple’s IAP for its global coverage and single API; others say it’s painful to integrate, inflexible, and blocks fair pricing and refunds.
• There’s concern that the requirement to use IAP for unlocking in‑app features still stands, keeping Apple’s core power intact.

Consumer Protection vs Choice

• Supporters of Apple’s control highlight easy refunds, unified subscription management, and fear of scams with arbitrary processors.
• Opponents counter that credit card chargebacks already provide protection, Apple bans accounts for chargebacks, and users should be free to trade convenience for lower prices.
• Several expect many apps to steer to cheaper web payments while leaving Apple IAP as a premium, optional path.

Broader Ecosystem and Alternatives

• Some want multiple app stores or true sideloading instead of just external payment links.
• Others argue the App Store’s gatekeeping has improved app quality versus Android, but acknowledge Apple invited regulatory backlash by overreaching.

Jujutsu vs Fossil and Git: Philosophy and Features

• Fossil is described as immutable-history-first: no rebasing, every mistake becomes a permanent commit; this helps data preservation but can clutter long-term history.
• Jujutsu (jj) is change-mutable: you freely rewrite and reorder local commits, then publish only the “final” history, while jj still keeps a local rewrite history so nothing is lost.
• Some Fossil users dislike any history rewriting as “false history”; others feel jj strikes a good balance between clean history and safety.
• jj is “just” a CLI like git, unlike Fossil’s integrated forge/wiki/bug tracking.
• jj removes git’s index/staging area; the working state is always tracked as part of changes, which some see as simpler and more orthogonal primitives.

User Experiences and Tooling Around jj

• Several commenters have switched personal work to jj and report smoother workflows: easy fixups, no stashes, less index wrangling.
• Tools like lazyjj, jjui, VisualJJ, and VS Code integrations help navigate history and provide “smartlog”-style visualization; some feel jj still needs a top-tier visual tool to match Mercurial/Sapling UIs.
• One user found jj’s “everything tracked” behavior surprising and reverted, feeling it “messed up” their code, but others say this is by design and stable.

Pull Requests, Units of Change, and Review Workflows

• There’s broad frustration with GitHub-style PRs as the primary “unit of change”; they often become large, messy, and hard to review.
• Some advocate commit-centric workflows: small, self-contained commits each reviewed and signed off, often inspired by Gerrit/Perforce/Sapling-style stacks.
• Others argue PR-centric, squash-merge workflows are simpler and safer for most teams; reviewing every commit is seen by some as excessive overhead.
• Stacked PRs are widely liked in principle but seen as poorly supported by GitHub/GitLab; external tools like git-spice and Graphite, and jj’s change model, are mentioned as workarounds.

Commit History, bisect, and Squash Merges

• A long subthread debates git bisect: many report it as invaluable for large, complex codebases and regressions; others say they’ve never needed it.
• Clean, fine-grained history is framed as essential for powerful bisect and meaningful blame.
• Squash merges are criticized for destroying that granularity, making it harder or impossible for bisect to isolate regressions.

Git’s Dominance and Appetite for Alternatives

• Some are “tired of git alternatives” and argue people should just learn git properly.
• Others welcome jj as a compatible, easier, and arguably superior UX atop git, and see room for dethroning git over time.
• Missing features (notably submodules support) and ecosystem gaps (LLM tools only “knowing” git) are cited as practical blockers to fully adopting jj.

Overall Reception

• Many commenters find the TTY-style portfolio “fun”, “original”, “beautiful”, and a nice passion project.
• Others appreciate the “old web” vibe and the fact that it’s clearly built for the creator’s own enjoyment, not just utility.
• Some feel it looks incomplete or “half-baked” because it sits between a real shell and a normal website.

Terminal Authenticity & Features

• Repeated requests for classic commands: ls, cd, clear, less, grep, echo, uname, exit, plus numbered/TUI-like navigation.
• Multiple people instinctively tried ls, sudo rm -rf /, cat /etc/passwd, and adventure commands like plugh/xyzzy and were disappointed they didn’t work.
• Suggestions to add:
  • A pager (less) for long output.
  • Tab completion and more realistic keyboard shortcuts.
  • Better terminal fonts and consistent styling for headers.
  • Humorous responses to dangerous commands (rm -rf /).

Usability, Audience & Mobile

• Strong split:
  • Some see friction as a deliberate filter, good for targeting technical visitors.
  • Others argue that as a portfolio/introduction, it risks alienating recruiters, non-technical people, and mobile users.
• Concerns:
  • Typing to navigate is off-putting for many; people prefer mouse/touch.
  • Terminal-style UI is awkward on phones (onscreen keyboard, no arrow keys, double-enter issues, constant scrolling).
  • Site is not usable in text-only browsers (Lynx/ELinks) and has quirks with extensions like Vimium.
• Common proposed compromise:
  • Make commands and highlighted words clickable and auto-executing.
  • Provide a “clear text” or standard HTML view alongside the TTY view.
  • Make subpages linkable (deep links that auto-run the right command).

Inspiration, Alternatives & Experiments

• Several people share their own terminal-themed or TUI-inspired sites and libraries and mention similar projects from earlier eras.
• Ideas floated:
  • Add telnet/SSH access in parallel to a normal web UI.
  • Turn the site into a small adventure game.
  • Use a minimal “motherfucking website”-style HTML design if the goal is traditionalist simplicity rather than terminal cosplay.

Whimsical test data and its risks

• Many developers use obviously fake or humorous data (Batman, “Rich Bastard,” cartoon characters, meme machines, Lovecraft quotes, heavy-metal band names, emoji, etc.) so test data is clearly non‑production and easy to spot.
• Multiple anecdotes show this backfires when test data leaks into production, demos, documentation, or customer mailings (“Dear Rich Bastard”, cartoonish VM names in official training, strange default ports).
• Some argue there’s zero benefit and only downside risk; others say lighthearted test data helps morale and can even help spot data integrity issues (out‑of‑place characters reveal cross‑system leaks).
• Several people now follow a rule of thumb: use clearly labeled, non‑offensive “Test…” data you wouldn’t mind a judge, client, or executive seeing.

Names, dummy data, and software assumptions

• Stories highlight collisions between “fake” names and real people (Batman surname, “Richard Test,” “Tester” families) and show that many systems mishandle unusual names (“Fake,” “Null,” tricky Unicode, multiple scripts, no fixed name, etc.).
• This feeds into the “falsehoods programmers believe about names” theme: assumptions about uniqueness, character sets, mandatory names, and single canonical spellings often break in real life.

Watermarks and legal document norms

• The dragon isn’t treated as a small logo but a full‑page, high‑opacity background that clearly impairs readability; several people say they’d find it intolerable in any serious document.
• Lawyers note courts already impose very strict formatting rules (fonts, spacing, margins, line numbers, page limits); watermarking filings at all is unusual and often disallowed.
• The judge’s order is seen as enforcing consistency and readability, similar to rejecting Comic Sans or neon colors. Some liken it to the “no brown M&Ms” clause: proof the lawyer can follow detailed instructions.

Decorum, optics, and bias in court

• Many emphasize that court is not a venue for “fun”: it’s where liberty and life can be at stake, so decorum and neutral presentation help maintain seriousness and reduce distractions.
• Comparisons arise with tattoos, purple hair, or slangy filings: people acknowledge courts and juries are biased by appearance and style, so a rational client should avoid anything that might prejudice judge or jury—even if, in principle, it “shouldn’t matter.”
• Some worry the legal system over‑prioritizes optics over substance; others respond that procedure and formality are precisely what help keep proceedings fair and focused.

Underlying prison‑care case vs dragon sideshow

• Several commenters are disturbed that the media focus is on the mascot rather than the allegation that a prisoner nearly died from lack of medical care.
• There’s debate over prisoner lawsuits: some recount credible, horrific abuse cases; others note courts see many exaggerated or meritless prison suits, prompting triage systems and restrictive laws.
• A recurring concern: both courts and the public may be too quick to discount inmate claims, while at the same time becoming fixated on trivial optics like a dragon watermark.

Lawyer professionalism and marketing angle

• Commenters note the firm’s branding (“Dragon” name, AI pitch, vanity phone number) and apparent website issues (broken links, generic‑sounding reviews), seeing the watermark as part marketing, part stunt.
• Opinion is split between treating this as quirky branding vs a red flag that the attorney isn’t taking a high‑stakes civil‑rights case with sufficient gravitas.

Side thread on furries and “scalies”

• The dragon mascot triggers a long tangent explaining furry culture, “scalies,” and “therians,” with both curiosity and discomfort in the reactions; some emphasize these identities are mostly harmless ways people find community.

Zig for Gamedev & Ecosystem

• Solo gamedev in Zig is seen as viable, especially when leveraging C/C++ libraries via Zig’s strong FFI and ability to compile C/C++/ObjC directly.
• Native Zig gamedev ecosystem is still thin; many rely on C libraries (e.g., raylib, SDL) and wrappers (e.g., zig-gamedev). Pure Zig alternatives like Mach are emerging but not yet as mature as long‑standing C libs.
• Some warn that spending too much time on language/engine tinkering vs actually making a game is a risk, similar to what’s happened in Rust gamedev.

Breaking Changes & Pre‑1.0 Status

• Breaking changes are acknowledged but described by users as manageable: typically renames or small API shifts, documented in release notes.
• Others consider using a pre‑1.0 language for a shippable game “building on sand” and worry about long‑term maintenance.

Build System & Composability

• Many praise Zig’s build system as simpler and more coherent than CMake/Maven/Gradle: builds are just Zig programs using stdlib APIs.
• Critics argue imperative build scripts are hard to compose and extend (coverage, codegen, etc.), preferring more declarative systems (Meson, Ninja, Cargo). Comparisons to Gradle’s “too much freedom” appear.

Learning Support: Discord vs Stack Overflow vs Forums

• Zig Discord is described as very responsive for beginners, with questions answered in minutes.
• Strong pushback: Discord is proprietary, poorly searchable from the web, and traps repeated Q&A; some call this a regression from Stack Overflow’s canonical, indexed answers.
• Others note SO has become hostile and beginner‑unfriendly; chat feels more engaging and faster.
• Suggested middle grounds: Ziggit (Discourse), AnswerOverflow-style indexing, or exporting Discord threads; debate over whether Discord’s internal search and threading are “good enough.”

Language Features & Bugs

• A reported atan issue is clarified as a comptime_float vs f32 type quirk in Zig’s type system; considered a stdlib oversight, not absence of atan.
• comptime is generally viewed as simpler and more pleasant than C++ templates, with better error messages, though low‑level and sometimes bug‑prone.
• String handling is criticized as too manual (allocators, explicit frees); others show patterns using stack buffers, allocPrint, and arena allocators to keep it reasonable, noting safety tradeoffs around unreachable.
• SIMD: Zig has first‑class vectors but no built‑in matrices; some see this as fine (“it’s all vectors”), others point out Odin/C3 offer richer SIMD/matrix ergonomics.

Rust vs Zig & “Developer Joy”

• Several comments frame Zig as “more joyful” or better suited for low‑level OS/gamedev than Rust, citing easier FFI and fewer borrow‑checker contortions.
• Counterarguments emphasize Rust’s high long‑term satisfaction, stronger safety, and that frustration is often front‑loaded into the learning curve or compile times.
• Some see Zig’s current honeymoon phase as typical of new languages; Rust’s ergonomic pain is compared to “paying upfront” for safety.

Use cases, breakage, and “do we need a replacement?”

• Many commenters say they’ve blocked third‑party cookies (3PCs) for years with no practical issues; a few only see minor breakage (e.g. some embedded videos).
• Others report real breakage, especially for cross‑domain embeds that need ambient login: LMS platforms embedding tools, SSO flows, embedded iframes that need to know who you are but can’t trust the parent domain.
• There’s debate over whether these are “regular human” needs or niche corporate/education cases, but they’re acknowledged as genuine use cases.
• Workarounds like OAuth, server‑to‑server calls, CORS, or Storage Access API exist but are criticized as much more complex and costly to integrate.

Advertising, business models, and Google/Chrome

• One camp: 3PCs are mainly for ad tracking; if ad networks suffer, that’s not a user problem.
• Another: users will lose “free” ad‑funded services they like; replacement funding models are hard.
• Several note that Google could track fine without 3PCs, so removal hurts competitors more; this is tied to antitrust scrutiny and regulators requiring “replacement” solutions to preserve competition.
• Chrome’s decision not to fully remove 3PCs is seen by some as protecting ad rivals, by others as capitulating to adtech pressure.

Privacy, fingerprinting, and JavaScript

• Strong concern that removing 3PCs will push sites toward more aggressive fingerprinting and server‑side profiling, which are harder to see or block.
• Others argue fingerprinting is already widespread; removing 3PCs is still a net win and lets standards/browsers focus on fingerprinting next.
• Some believe technical fixes are limited as long as JS can run arbitrary code; others propose strict network restrictions, taint/“poisoning” models, or heavily locked‑down JS profiles.
• There’s significant support for legal approaches (GDPR‑like bans on fingerprinting, criminalizing data hoarding), though skepticism about enforcement also appears.

Standards bodies and “privacy‑preserving” replacements

• The W3C document is criticized as disorganized, politically influenced by adtech members, and more about keeping tracking viable than truly protecting privacy.
• “Privacy‑preserving attribution” and Google’s Privacy Sandbox are seen by many as rebranded tracking, likely to coexist with 3PCs rather than replace them.

Workarounds and alternative designs

• Commenters outline ways to re‑create cross‑site tracking with first‑party cookies, redirects, proxying through subdomains, server‑to‑server APIs, and fingerprinting.
• Some propose more radical changes: client certificates instead of cookies, DNS or “first‑party sets” declarations for related domains, stricter state partitioning, or even a UI distinction between low‑risk “documents” (no JS) and high‑risk “apps.”

User practices and attitudes

• Many already block 3PCs, use Firefox/Brave with extensions, or disable JS by default; they report mostly tolerable friction.
• Others think privacy is effectively impossible online and focus on using pseudonymous identities instead of trying to avoid tracking entirely.