Hacker News, Distilled

AI Writing Style, System Prompts, and “Voice”

• Many commenters agree current AI email features (e.g., Gmail/Gemini) produce verbose, generic, “HR-drone” prose that feels worse than just writing a line yourself.
• There’s strong interest in exposing system prompts and letting users define style rules (“short, direct, no fluff”, per-recipient tone, etc.), or training on past emails to match one’s natural voice.
• Some point out that base models and fine-tunes already can write very human-like text; they suspect big companies deliberately keep outputs stilted for safety, branding, and comfort.
• Others worry that AI impersonating users is deceptive and socially corrosive, favoring explicit “sent on behalf of X by an assistant” labelling.

Usefulness vs. AI Hype

• Many see most product AI integrations as “AI slop”: meeting recaps they don’t read, banal “activity summaries” (e.g., fitness apps), or longer rephrasings of trivial emails.
• Widely acknowledged high-value uses: code assistants, deep search over complex docs/standards, transcription (Whisper), some RAG-based knowledge retrieval, and niche classification/extraction tasks.
• Several note that LLMs make previously hard ML problems (small-data extraction, categorization) commercially viable, even if they’re not flashy.

Meeting Notes, Summaries, and Accuracy

• Experience with AI note-takers is mixed to negative: missing key decisions, inverting conclusions after flip-flop discussions, or producing summaries that are meme-worthy but unusable.
• Long debate on accuracy: some argue AI only needs “good enough” for attendees; others insist that unreliable records are worse than none, especially for legal or historical reference.
• There’s concern about discoverability: detailed, auto-generated minutes may be subpoenaed and chill honest discussion.

Rethinking Email and Agents

• Many like the article’s concept of AI that reads and triages email, proposes labels/actions, and drafts minimal replies, versus tools that “beautify” text.
• Skeptics argue that for most short emails, prompting is slower than typing; supporters counter that non-native speakers or anxious writers gain a lot from tone-safe drafts.
• Some envision a future where agents negotiate directly (rescheduling, status, simple decisions), with humans mostly reviewing/overriding rather than composing.

UX, “Horseless Carriages,” and Future Directions

• Commenters see current chat-style interfaces and bolt-on buttons as transitional “horseless carriages”: AI wrapped around existing workflows instead of rethinking them.
• Desired next steps: new UI paradigms beyond chat, persistent learned behavior, robust tool invocation (calculators, calendars, CRMs), and products designed around AI from the start rather than AI as a feature.
• There’s ongoing tension between enthusiasm (“this feels like a new paradigm”) and skepticism about cost, reliability, privacy, and whether many AI features solve real problems or just chase hype.

AI Doomerism, Risk, and “Cult” Accusations

• Some commenters attack prominent AI doom figures as “Bayesian nutjobs,” cult-like, or tied to dubious ideology; they cite shifting, non-falsifiable timelines and fearmongering.
• Others push back, noting mainstream researchers who warn about extinction risk and also acknowledge nearer-term harms.
• There’s agreement that AI safety is important, but disagreement over whether it should be led by existing “rationalist” communities vs. traditional academia and engineering.
• Several worry less about extinction and more about inequality, surveillance, and political misuse.

Techno-Utopian Ideologies (TESCREAL, Cosmism, Transhumanism)

• Discussion of TESCREAL as a bundled label for various future-oriented ideologies.
• Some argue its supposed “deep roots” in Russian Cosmism are largely a retrospective fiction based on sci-fi, with poor scholarship and factual errors.
• Others say these ideas are great for science fiction but weak as life-guiding or political frameworks.

Mars, Longevity, and “Escape” vs. Fixing Earth

• Strong split over Mars colonization: critics call it technically dubious, economically wasteful, and vastly harder than proponents admit; advocates see it as a “moonshot” that drives innovation and provides existential insurance.
• Long debate over timescales (decades vs. a century+), viability of self-sustaining colonies, and whether we could already do one-way missions with current tech.
• Many argue we haven’t even “settled” Antarctica or deserts; robots outperform humans for science; Earth after catastrophe is still friendlier than Mars.
• Others emphasize exploration, human “spirit,” and portfolio thinking: fund both near-term social problems and long-horizon projects.

Billionaires, Capital Allocation, and Media Critique

• Some see billionaire-funded space/AI/longevity projects as grifts, escapism, or vanity that distract from solvable issues like poverty, climate, and disease.
• Others argue private ambition has delivered real benefits (EVs, cheap launches, satellite internet) and that capitalism plus tech will do more than activism or regulation.
• Debate over whether critics (NYT, other outlets) reflexively attack any ambitious tech, and whether tech leaders routinely overpromise and mislead.

Technology vs. Politics as the Lever of Change

• Recurrent theme: Mars and AGI are primarily technical problems; poverty, inequality, and authoritarianism are primarily political.
• Several commenters criticize “ideology of technological salvation” that assumes future inventions will clean up current externalities, allowing business as usual.
• Others insist large-scale improvements in health and lifespan show that transformative progress mainly comes from technology, with politics lagging behind.

Experts, VCs, and Public Discourse

• Frustration that wealthy founders and VCs are treated as universal experts while domain specialists stay quiet or inaccessible.
• Counter-argument: experts shouldn’t be expected to become full-time communicators or pundits; their incentive structures differ from hype-driven investors.

Erosion of Consent and Dark Patterns

• Many apps/OSes have replaced “never ask me again” with “not now” loops that reset and nag repeatedly.
• People describe this as harassment rather than real choice; the system only stops when you give the “right” answer.
• Examples: YouTube Shorts and banners, Windows 11 and Edge prompts, iOS Health and Apple News banners, Gmail-on-iOS pushing Chrome, Apple’s reactions and News, app-rating popups, store apps pushing “open in our app”.

Why Companies Do It

• Commenters agree it’s deliberate: funnels, DAU, “engagement” and promotions are optimized, while user respect is unmeasured externality.
• Some argue these behaviors confer a competitive advantage (like pollution) unless regulated; others say they burn trust and damage reputations long term.
• Observation that many users simply accept defaults/preinstalls, so nagging works and spreads.

Regulation, Law, and Market Power

• Strong thread arguing only legislation can set a floor (e.g., dark-pattern bans, interoperability, reverse engineering rights, DMA-style rules).
• Counterpoint: individual refusal and open source adoption still matter, but are often not realistic when platforms are monopolistic or two-sided (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook groups, student orgs on Instagram).
• Analogies to casino legalization and constitutional/rights erosion: powerful actors keep “re-asking” until they win once, then never ask again.

Responsibility Inside Companies

• Debate over blaming UX designers vs PMs vs executives.
• Some see any participation as complicity; others say refusing over a “shitty but not clearly unethical” UX is unrealistic self-sacrifice.
• Engineers are also seen as sharing blame; incentives and promotion systems reward engagement metrics, not user dignity.

User Coping Strategies and FOSS

• Many uninstall any app that interrupts workflows with unrelated prompts; some propose making this a named “law”.
• Heavy use of adblockers, alternative clients (where legal), notification channel tuning, and browser element blocking to fight nags.
• Several frame this as a concrete advertisement for free/open-source software, where users can fork, patch, or choose tools that actually obey “never”. Skepticism remains about non-profits and employee ownership as a universal fix.

Notifications and Mobile Enshittification

• Strong resentment of push notifications used for “engagement” instead of actual events, especially from apps that users must keep (banking, rides, health).
• Platforms nominally restrict marketing notifications, but both first-party and third-party apps routinely abuse or route around those rules.

Bug root cause and manifestation

• The issue comes from a missing wheel-scale value for the Skimmer in a text data file; the parser reads one field fewer than expected.
• The code then reads the wheel-scale from an uninitialized local variable, which previously happened to contain a “reasonable” leftover value from earlier stack usage.
• In Windows 11 24H2 this leftover becomes a huge float, so the plane spawns extremely high above the map and appears to have vanished.

Why it only appeared on Windows 11 24H2

• The underlying game bug has always been there; the OS change merely exposed it.
• A new implementation of critical sections in Windows now uses more stack space, overwriting what used to be the “lucky” garbage value.
• Commenters connect this to long-standing Windows app‑compat stories, where even internal stack layout changes can break buggy apps.

Undefined behavior and uninitialized memory

• Many see this as a textbook example of how undefined behavior (UB) can lie dormant for years and surface after unrelated changes (OS, compiler, build mode).
• Suggested mitigations: always initialize locals, compare debug vs release behavior, use sanitizers (ASan/UBSan/MSan), and run with stack-init patterns to flush out UB.
• Some argue this class of bug is essentially impossible in languages that forbid uninitialized reads or enforce definite assignment.

Parsing, data formats, and libraries

• Debate over 2004 constraints: low RAM, limited tooling, and weaker ecosystem for XML/JSON/YAML parsers, especially on consoles.
• Others counter that even later titles from the same studio hand‑rolled fragile parsers (e.g., JSON via sscanf), causing severe performance or reliability problems.
• Several insist teams should use well‑vetted open‑source parsers; others worry about library bloat, security issues, or 2000s-era licensing fears.

Languages, tooling, and safety

• Thread branches into C/C++ vs managed or “safer” languages (Rust, functional languages, Java/C#), with many noting that most modern languages would have prevented this exact bug.
• Skeptics point out game‑dev realities: existing C++ engines, console targets, performance constraints, and the cost/risk of adopting new languages at AAA scale.

Compatibility, contracts, and randomness

• Some blame Microsoft for changing internal behavior; others insist the fault lies squarely with the game relying on UB.
• Discussion of “if it’s not in the contract, randomize it” (e.g., map iteration order) as a way to prevent accidental reliance on unspecified behavior, balanced against performance and reproducibility concerns.

Hosting: Cloudflare Pages vs GitHub Pages vs Others

• Many note the workflow could be identical with GitHub Pages; Cloudflare is chosen mainly for DNS consolidation and “closer to the edge” performance.
• GitHub’s ToS around “no free SaaS / ecommerce” is discussed; commenters think normal personal or small-company static sites are fine, especially since GitHub Pages is fronted by Fastly and handles spikes well.
• Some prefer Netlify, S3+CloudFront, AWS Amplify, or classic VPS/nginx; one argues “zero-cost” centralizes the web and that a cheap droplet is a healthier stack to learn.

Static Site Generators vs Raw HTML vs CMS

• Long subthread debates “Why Hugo/Jekyll instead of hand-written HTML?”
• Pro-SSG arguments: templates for shared nav/footers, pagination, tags/RSS, consistent layout, easy bulk changes, syntax highlighting, image pipelines, graphviz/gnuplot integration, anchor management, and scaling to hundreds+ posts.
• Raw-HTML defenders say a simple blog doesn’t need that complexity; scripting with sed or small tools edges toward “you’ve just built an SSG.”
• Others advocate full CMS (e.g., Wagtail/Puput, Kirby, Ghost, Decap CMS) for rich-text editing, image handling, version history, and browser-based publishing.

Editors & Writing Workflow (Obsidian, IDEs, AI)

• Obsidian is praised as a joy to write in: distraction-free, WYSIWYG-like markdown, properties/frontmatter editing, and central “vault” for all writing.
• Some prefer VSCode/Neovim with live Hugo previews, or 11ty/Eleventy, Astro, Pelican, Zola, SvelteKit, etc.
• Debate on AI tools: some see Copilot/LLMs as antithetical to personal blogging; others use them as “calculators for words” for formatting, restructuring, and proofreading while keeping ideas human.

“Fully Owned” and Self‑Hosting

• The phrase “fully owned” draws heavy scrutiny: critics argue reliance on GitHub/Cloudflare and closed-source Obsidian undermines that claim.
• Defenders say “ownership” here means: content is plain markdown, built with open tools, versioned in Git, and easily portable to any host or editor—unlike platform-locked services.
• Several insist true control requires self-hosting (VPS or home nginx), while others push back that maintenance, security, and hardware/ISP dependence are non-trivial.

Variants, Over‑Engineering, and Practicalities

• Many share near-identical stacks with different pieces swapped: Netlify instead of Cloudflare, Jekyll/11ty/Astro instead of Hugo, Pelican/Zola/SvelteKit frontends, Obsidian vs VSCode vs email-as-CMS.
• Obsidian Publish is mentioned as a simpler paid alternative, though custom domains and price make DIY stacks attractive.
• Issues raised: syncing conflicts with Dropbox/Drive, handling drafts (frontmatter vs gitignore), grammar support for dyslexic writers, image/video hosting and git-LFS, and lack of access logs on some static hosts.

Meta: Blog-Setup as a Genre & LLM-Era Learning

• Commenters joke about endless “how I built my blog with X” posts and site rewrites that overshadow actual content, while acknowledging such tinkering is a fun “Hello World” for developers.
• One off-topic thread reflects on the shift from libraries and forums to “ask the LLM,” worrying about losing process-oriented learning; replies counter that tools always evolve, and different people just want different depths of understanding.

Terminology: Unix, Linux, BSD, POSIX

• Several comments note widespread confusion: educators often present “Linux” and “Unix/BSD” as unrelated, when they largely share a POSIX interface.
• People increasingly use “Linux” as a generic word for “Unix‑like shell environment,” which backfires when scripts assume GNU tools or bash and are then run on BSD or macOS.
• Some argue the concept of POSIX has already “won” (everyone uses printf etc.), but the word POSIX never became popular and probably never will.

---

What MinC Actually Is

• The site calls MinC “a tiny kernel,” but code readers conclude it’s a user‑space POSIX/BSD compatibility layer for Windows, not a real kernel.
• It exposes OpenBSD 6.1 userland and APIs via a DLL that emulates BSD system calls on top of the NT kernel, more akin to Cygwin than to a standalone OS or VM.
• The author later concedes it’s really “kernel emulation” in user space and that the word “kernel” is misleading; what’s implemented is essentially the syscall interface.

---

Relationship to Cygwin, MinGW, MSYS2, WSL

• Multiple comparisons:
  • Cygwin/MSYS: POSIX APIs implemented in a Windows DLL; MinC is described as a BSD‑flavored analogue.
  • MinGW: more focused on building native Win32 apps, not broad POSIX emulation.
  • WSL1: syscall translation layer; WSL2: full VM with better performance but heavier and subject to org policies/virtualization restrictions.
• Some see MinC’s value where WSL is unavailable, virtualization is banned, or tighter Win32 integration is desired.
• Others ask “why not just use WSL or a VM and get real Linux,” emphasizing divergence between Linux and OpenBSD specifics (e.g., ifconfig, rc vs systemd).

---

Teaching Use and Pedagogy

• MinC is motivated by teaching 16‑year‑olds command‑line skills on school Windows machines “without the hassle of virtualization.”
• The course reportedly starts with “bare‑bones Unix” and Apache to hook interest, then moves to Linux distributions later.
• Critics question using OpenBSD userland to “teach Linux,” since Linux’s dominant userland is GNU with systemd, not OpenBSD’s rc ecosystem.

---

Technical Details and Debates

• Implementation notes: syscall emulation in a fixed address range for faster startup; manual register saving/restoring to mimic context switches; Windows file handles modeled as different virtual filesystems; fork() implemented via threads, unlike Cygwin’s process‑clone approach.
• Commenters correct several misconceptions about kernel vs user space, context switching, and Windows internals, and argue the project is technically impressive but oversold by the “kernel” language.

---

Broader Context: Unix-on-Windows Options

• Thread touches on long history of Unix‑like layers on Windows (Cygwin, UWIN, MKS, MSYS2), performance pitfalls (filesystem, antivirus filters), and the gradual shift of many users from Cygwin to WSL or native Unix systems.

Why the US Was Funding CVE

• Several commenters argue the US funded CVE to be a “first mover” and de facto global leader in vulnerability coordination, gaining reputation and influence at low cost.
• Others question why a single, politically unstable country should control a global reference system; from abroad, this looks risky, and they’d expect other states to build alternatives.

“World Leader” vs “Leader of the Free World”

• Long subthread debates whether the US has ever explicitly claimed to be “leader of the world” versus “leader of the free world.”
• One side calls the distinction pedantic and says US power and military dominance effectively made it the world leader.
• The other side insists the broader “world leader” rhetoric is ahistorical and now being retrofitted to justify global public‑goods spending.

Cost, Value, and Governance of CVE

• $50M/year is seen by some as trivial compared to overall US budgets and a bargain for a single global vulnerability namespace.
• Others note reports that CVE was slow, backlogged, and poorly run, and argue that its effectiveness, not just its existence, should be scrutinized.
• There’s disagreement whether control of CVE is mainly reputational or also strategically valuable as “the world’s inbox for 0‑days.”

Motives for Dismantling: Bungling vs Intent

• One camp sees this as penny‑wise, pound‑foolish cost‑cutting by people who don’t understand cybersecurity but reflexively slash anything “international.”
• Another sees deliberate sabotage: dismantling civil cybersecurity and institutions (CVE, CISA, NIST, IRS, EPA) to weaken the state, enrich a global billionaire class, and pave the way for authoritarian “strong‑man” solutions.
• Some connect this to patterns of Russian state–organized‑crime fusion and to broader “accelerationist” ideology.

Alternatives: UN, EU, Private Sector, Decentralization

• Suggestions include moving CVE to the UN, building multi‑national or EU‑led databases, or fully decentralizing so no single state can shut it down.
• Skeptics note US hostility to the UN and lack of prior planning; cutting first, coordinating later is seen as evidence the current move is not about orderly internationalization.
• There is cautious support for diversifying funding (e.g., new CVE foundations) but concern that purely private replacements will cost more and deliver less.

Security, Public Awareness, and Politics

• Multiple commenters argue that gutting these programs does not help Americans and may expose US infrastructure and businesses to greater risk and foreign influence.
• Others downplay immediate practical impact, saying the private sector and other countries will fill gaps, though likely with short‑term disruption.
• A recurring thread laments that partisan media ecosystems leave many voters unaware of these moves, focusing instead on culture‑war topics.

DMA gatekeepers, size thresholds, and protectionism claims

• Commenters clarify that DMA obligations are triggered by scale, not nationality; current gatekeepers are mostly US firms plus ByteDance and Booking, though Booking’s parent is US-based.
• Some argue the thresholds are “gerrymandered” to spare large European players (e.g., Spotify), while others counter that Spotify lacks the gatekeeping power of YouTube, Google Search, or WhatsApp.
• There’s debate over whether non‑tariff trade barriers are being used de facto against US tech, versus a neutral attempt to curb dominance and enforce competition.

Meta’s “pay or consent” model and privacy law

• Many see Meta’s “pay or accept tracking” option as violating GDPR’s requirement that consent be freely given and not a condition for unnecessary data processing.
• Others note that many newspapers use similar “pay or be tracked” walls and haven’t faced comparable penalties, raising fairness and selective enforcement concerns.
• Several distinguish between ads and tracking: non‑personalized/contextual ads are fine; tying basic access to pervasive profiling is not. Some think regulators should just outlaw targeted ads directly.

Apple App Store, anti‑steering, and alternative distribution

• Strong support for banning Apple’s anti‑steering rules that prevented apps from even telling users about cheaper web sign‑ups (e.g., Netflix).
• The Commission’s preliminary view is that Apple’s alternative app store scheme and “Core Technology Fee” are designed to discourage competition; many call this “malicious compliance.”
• Developers resent the 30% cut and closed distribution; some users insist on a single vetted store, others want true sideloading and independent stores (including FOSS-style repos).
• Comparisons are made to Linux package managers and Steam, which don’t demand a platform tax on all downstream commerce.

Facebook Marketplace and platform dominance

• Marketplace lost its gatekeeper status because EU business usage fell below thresholds; some are surprised given its popularity elsewhere.
• Discussion highlights huge regional variation: in parts of Europe, local classifieds or eBay dominate; in others, Facebook is “the internet” for small businesses and classifieds.

Fines, enforcement, and regulatory philosophy

• Many see the ~€700M total as small relative to profits, but important as a first DMA test, setting legal precedent and enabling larger (up to 10% of global revenue, plus daily) fines for repeat non‑compliance.
• Some portray the EU as over‑regulating and hostile to innovation; others argue US antitrust neglect forced Europe to act, framing the DMA as pro‑competition, not anti‑American.

Antitrust context and possibility of a sale

• Commenters note Google has already been found to have abused its position; the trial is now in the “remedy” phase.
• Some argue Google may be forced to divest Chrome regardless of its wishes; others point out appeals could drag this out and outcomes are uncertain.
• There’s debate whether selling Chrome meaningfully addresses Google’s ad-tech monopoly, which many see rooted in acquisitions like DoubleClick and in Google’s broader ecosystem, not just the browser.

Why anyone (especially OpenAI) would want Chrome

• Core value is seen as:
  • ~3.5–4 billion users and distribution, especially on Android and as the browser people think “is the internet.”
  • Direct control of the client to funnel traffic, gather behavior data, and train AI models.
• Owning Chrome would instantly give OpenAI market share and a powerful “AI-first” gateway to the web, instead of slowly growing a new browser.

Forking Chromium vs buying Chrome

• Many say OpenAI could just fork Chromium, as Edge, Brave and others do.
• Counterpoint: the real asset is the brand, default status, update channel, and user momentum, not the code. A fork starts from near-zero users.
• Some expect any non‑Google owner would either enshittify Chrome to make it profitable or cut development.

Privacy, surveillance, and AI training fears

• Strong concern that an OpenAI‑owned Chrome would be a massive “spyware botnet,” sending all browsing to LLM training.
• People worry that even login‑protected sites could be harvested via the browser itself, making current anti‑scraping defenses ineffective.
• Several see AI data‑harvesting as just the next phase of the same surveillance capitalism that powered ad targeting.

Monetization and business models

• Speculated models: AI-as-default search with ads; subscription-style “premium AI browser”; advertiser‑driven influence over AI training (“pay to emphasize truths”).
• Some doubt inference costs and purchase price make the economics work; others think sheer scale of data and distribution could justify it.

Impact on competition and the wider web

• Some hope an AI-bloated Chrome would push users to Firefox or alternative browsers; others note Firefox is already financially fragile and heavily dependent on Google search deals.
• Fears that spinning Chrome out may just hand power to another “rapacious” giant (OpenAI, Oracle, Apple, even state-backed buyers), not fix systemic issues.
• Proposals include putting Chrome/Chromium under a nonprofit or public/utility-style governance, though many doubt political and legal feasibility.

OpenAI’s broader ambitions and skepticism

• Multiple comments connect this to rumors of OpenAI building a browser, social network, and IDE, seeing a pattern of trying to “eat everything on the table.”
• Some see it as attention‑seeking clickbait; others as a rational push for distribution before competitors (Google Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, etc.) catch up.

LLMs as Personal Shoppers and Future Ad Channels

• Several commenters already use ChatGPT to shop and expect it will soon be tuned to push brands, affiliates, and specific merchants.
• Concern that RLHF and opaque “reasoning” make it easy to hide paid preferences behind plausible-sounding explanations.
• Some see LLM shopping as a coping mechanism for terrible modern e‑commerce UX, not a pure upgrade.
• Widespread expectation that “pure” LLMs will be followed by an ad/affiliate‑infused phase, echoing early web nostalgia.

Amazon, E‑commerce, and Deliberate Confusion

• Many describe Amazon search as intentionally bad: mixing in near‑matches, miscategorized products, and interleaved ads that look like results.
• People report buying the wrong items (e.g., power strips vs surge protectors, wrong materials) due to noisy results and keyword poisoning.
• Debate: some say this is a hard search problem with user language ambiguity; others insist it’s enshittification driven by ad and engagement incentives.
• Praise for niche sites (McMaster, Digikey, geizhals) that invest in rich, accurate filters and structured data as the opposite of the Gruen pattern.

Social Feeds and Dark Patterns

• Facebook and Instagram are cited as classic Gruen‑like environments: users open the app for a simple purpose, get sucked into feeds of memes, reels, and recommendations, and often never reach their original goal.
• Users describe strong efforts by platforms to block feed‑cleaning tools and to obscure DOM structure, reinforcing that this is intentional.
• Some note new “friends only” feeds, but complain they’re buried, reset frequently, or still cluttered with “suggested” content.

Is Wikipedia (and Similar Sites) Gruen?

• Split views:
  • One camp says Wikipedia isn’t designed to disorient; it simply links interesting content, and lingering is aligned with its educational mission.
  • Others say it still produces a Gruen‑like state (rabbit holes), even if emergent rather than profit‑driven.

Physical-World Analogies and Regulation

• Airports, IKEA, and malls are used as intuitive examples of forced paths and disorienting layouts to maximize exposure to retail.
• EU rules about symmetric ease of subscribe/unsubscribe are discussed; commenters clarify that “unfair” barriers and aggressive retention tactics are legally restricted in theory, though often flouted in practice.

Broader Critique and Coping

• Strong sense that advertising and current capitalism push products toward user‑hostile, confusing designs (“enshittification”).
• Some respond by quitting platforms, using blockers, or relying on LLM summaries instead of navigating hostile interfaces.

Overall take on the article and “advanced” features

• Many readers liked the post as a compact “things you might not know” list, especially for typing and newer syntax.
• Several argued that most items (except metaclasses) aren’t truly “advanced” but underused basics; metaclasses and descriptors are seen as genuinely complex and often avoided.
• Some see the list as nicely in the middle ground between beginner content and arcane internals.

for/else, search patterns, and alternatives

• Strong debate around for/else: some like it for expressing “no break → do X”; others find it confusing because else appears attached to the loop body instead of break.
• Alternatives suggested: pre-initializing a default (primary_server = backup_server), using next(..., default), or a helper like first(...).
• Functional/iterator-based styles ((s for s in servers if ...) + next()) and itertools/more_itertools are promoted as clearer abstractions.

Readability vs cleverness / “simple Python”

• A recurring theme: prefer code that is obvious over “smart tricks”. Some teams explicitly discourage advanced syntax in favor of straightforward if-heavy code.
• Multiple commenters wish for a “python_light” or curated “simple subset”; others respond that you can just not use features and enforce that via linters or CI, and that social coordination on a fork/subset would be hard.

Typing, overloads, and protocols

• Typing features dominate the discussion. Some love @overload, generics, Protocol, TypedDict, Self, assert_never, and __all__ for large codebases and libraries.
• Others find Python’s typing clunky compared to TypeScript: mypy’s weak inference (Any too often), awkward defaults, and heavy cast usage.
• Pyright/pyright-based tools are recommended as better type checkers; mypy is defended as optimized for gradual adoption.
• Debate over how much should be inferred vs explicitly annotated, and how 0/default arguments should be typed.

Context managers and metaprogramming

• Some are surprised context managers are considered “advanced”; others admit they didn’t know about them and found the examples helpful.
• Generator-based context managers via contextlib.contextmanager are defended as clearer than __enter__/__exit__ for error handling and composition.
• Metaclasses are acknowledged as powerful but easy to misuse; a few report justified use-cases (e.g., DSLs, validators), but most advise extreme caution.

Walrus operator, truthiness, and operator semantics

• Walrus operator is controversial: some see it as minor, occasionally handy (especially in while or optional/regex patterns); others think it hurts readability for tiny gains.
• Truthiness (empty string/0/None) is called out as a frequent source of subtle bugs; some advocate explicit is None / len(x) checks instead of relying on truthiness.
• Discussion notes surprising behaviors like +/+= differences for mutable vs immutable types and the complexity of operator dispatch (__add__/__radd__).

Language complexity, documentation, and idioms

• Several note Python has grown complex, especially with typing and pattern matching; users coming from JS/TS or Go feel both impressed and overwhelmed.
• Discoverability of features in official docs is seen as poor; there’s interest in more “idiomatic modern Python” guides and in applying better documentation patterns.
• Despite concerns, many appreciate that advanced features (especially typing) are optional and that Python still works well as both a “glue” language and for large structured systems.

Notable funded projects & perceived impact

• Commenters highlight several grantees as particularly valuable: public-transit tools (e.g. MOTIS adding European data standards), OpenStreetMap contribution tools, KDE Plasma, PeerTube for institutions, Typst / CSS-for-print projects, DNS tooling, and small infrastructure pieces like dnsmasq.
• NLnet is credited with previously enabling projects such as Lemmy, Mastodon, and Marginalia, reinforcing its reputation as a high‑leverage micro‑grantor.

How NLnet / NGI funding works

• Many praise NLnet’s process as unusually lightweight for public money: a short proposal, milestone-based payouts, little bureaucracy, and no “consultants required”.
• Others recount negative experiences: long delays, opaque rejections, or broader frustration with EU cascade-funding programs and perceived cronyism.
• There’s recognition that government procurement (e.g. large LibreOffice deployments) is an important indirect funding channel.

Integrated system vendor vs modular ecosystem

• One major thread argues the EU’s real gap is an Apple/Microsoft-class “system vendor” that can deliver hardware, OS, office suite, identity, and support as one integrated offer for governments and corporations.
• Opponents say recreating a European Microsoft just reproduces monopoly problems; they prefer an interoperable ecosystem of smaller FOSS components, perhaps coordinated via a central “platform” for billing, discovery, and integration.
• Some propose a European software agency or defense-style procurement program for an OS, browser, and office suite; others fear bureaucratic bloat and political infighting.

Practical lock‑in: Microsoft, Adobe, Google

• Several participants stress that Microsoft 365, Active Directory/Group Policy, and the Office/Adobe stacks are the main blockers inside administrations, not OS kernels or servers.
• Replacing them requires: deep integration (identity, device management), workflow‑compatible office/design tools, and a single accountable support entity.
• Counterarguments: most users only need a fraction of current suites; Linux + FOSS office + web apps are already technically adequate if paired with strong integrators and support vendors.

Strategy, focus, and “reclaiming the internet”

• Critics say €50k‑scale grants for many disparate projects lack a coherent strategy; they call for grand industrial policy: a public search index, serious Google replacement, phone platform + app store, or a “cloud OS”.
• Others defend the “many small bets” model as akin to angel investing in commons infrastructure, with complementary efforts like the Sovereign Tech Fund targeting low-level plumbing.
• There’s broad agreement that better coordination and explicit architectural goals (interoperable standards, simpler web, less centralization) are still missing.

What is a “pixel”? Sample, element, or unit?

• Several comments define a pixel as a sample or tuple of color values (e.g., RGB) at a location, i.e., a data item, not something with inherent physical size.
• Others insist a pixel is a picture element on a device (sensor/display), inherently two‑dimensional with area.
• A third camp calls a pixel essentially a “countable thing” (like apples, eggs, or tiles), not a measurement unit in the strict sense.

Units, counts, and dimensional analysis

• Many argue pixels are dimensionless counts, like “number of atoms” or “moles,” so “pixel²” is meaningless; you just have a count of pixels in an area.
• The widespread usage “1920×1080 pixels” or “12 megapixels” is seen as informal shorthand, analogous to “5 blocks away” or “10 tiles high.”
• Some say the article’s attempt to treat pixels like meters (a true length unit) is fundamentally wrong; meters × meters ≠ meters, but pixels × pixels still yields “pixels” as a count.

Physical realization: sensors, displays, and non-square pixels

• Discussion notes non-square pixels in DVDs, older VGA modes, some DSLRs, medical imaging, and various displays.
• Camera side: talk of photosites/sensels, Bayer patterns, sensor size vs megapixel count, and how demosaicing complicates a 1:1 photosite→pixel mapping.
• Display side: subpixels (RGB emitters), irregular geometries, and differing physical sizes mean no universal pixel length or area.

Point-sample vs little-square model

• One influential view: pixels should be treated as point samples for signal/image processing; the “little square” mental model is mathematically harmful for resampling and reconstruction.
• Counterargument: real sensors integrate over finite areas and real displays emit over finite areas, so modeling pixels as small rectangles is often more accurate in practice, especially for graphics, GUIs, and pixel art.

Subpixels, font smoothing, and modern screens

• Subpixel rendering shows that treating pixels as simple uniform squares is insufficient; exploiting RGB subpixels can increase effective resolution on low‑DPI displays.
• Others note subpixel techniques are fading on high‑DPI screens and in modern toolkits, where grayscale antialiasing and sheer resolution dominate.

Language, context, and overall reaction

• Several comments frame this as a linguistic/semantic issue (synecdoche: “pixels” standing for “pixel widths/heights” or pixel counts).
• Consensus leans toward: “pixel” has multiple, context‑dependent meanings (count, area element, sample, sometimes even time in video), and forcing it into a single “unit of length/area” is more confusing than helpful.

Strategic value vs distraction for Godot

• Many argue visionOS is an extremely niche, expensive platform and official support would impose a long‑term maintenance and coordination burden on Godot for minimal benefit.
• Concern: once “official,” every engine change must consider visionOS, slowing core development and diluting effort needed to compete with Unity/Unreal.
• Others counter that Godot already supports niche targets; if there is demand and Apple is contributing engineers, this is the ideal way for a small open‑source engine to gain new platform support.

Core integration vs plugin / extension

• Several commenters suggest visionOS should be a plugin rather than in‑engine support.
• People familiar with the PR note this is unrealistic: visionOS is a separate OS with different build/runtime constraints, so platform hooks must touch core. A plugin model fits “VR as an option on an existing OS,” not a new OS.

Apple’s motives, standards, and open source behavior

• Skeptical view: Apple benefits far more than Godot; this is about boosting Vision Pro content while offloading maintenance to the community. Without OpenXR support or broader Godot investment, it’s seen as “high‑maintenance code” dropped on maintainers.
• Others see it as a positive: Apple helping an open engine instead of doing a closed fork; similar to contributions to OBS or WebGPU work.
• Strong debate over Apple’s refusal to support Vulkan/OpenXR and insistence on Metal/visionOS‑specific APIs. Some want Godot to “insist” on OpenXR; others say Godot has no leverage and that this PR only adds basic build support, not XR features.

Maintenance, funding, and process concerns

• Worries that Apple opened a very large PR without prior design discussion, initially with issues (e.g., bundling paths), implying ongoing support work for Godot maintainers.
• Multiple calls for Apple to donate money, headsets, or sponsor dedicated maintainers if they expect long‑term support.

VR / Vision Pro viability

• Long, mixed discussion on whether VR and Vision Pro are a shrinking niche or a “pre‑iPhone” early stage.
• Some see Vision Pro as a technical marvel but commercially weak: limited install base, high price, few compelling apps beyond virtual monitors and 3D movies, and no native OpenXR or VR controllers.
• Others argue Apple can play a long game toward lightweight AR glasses, and having Godot support visionOS now could pay off if that future materializes.

Wireless charging & magnetic alignment

• Several comments note that magnetic alignment for inductive charging predates modern MagSafe-style implementations (e.g., older Nexus and Palm systems).
• Wireless charging is praised for eliminating port wear and dust issues, but multiple commenters warn it tends to heat devices more and may accelerate battery degradation, especially without active cooling.

Desire for user control over charging behavior

• Many participants want simple, explicit controls: e.g., default slow charge with a one-tap “fast charge this time” option, or physical toggles on chargers for slow/fast/app-controlled modes.
• Existing features like Adaptive/Optimized Charging, fast-charge toggles, and 80% caps on Android and iOS are appreciated but often seen as:
  • Hidden too deep in settings.
  • Too coarse (only 80%/100%).
  • Lacking easy temporary overrides.
• Some use external dongles or root-only apps to set current limits, voltage caps, temperature limits, or battery-bypass modes.

Battery longevity vs convenience

• One camp argues most users just want the fastest possible charge and will replace phones every few years; they see micro-managing charge as overkill.
• Another camp deliberately caps to ~60–80%, uses slow chargers, or avoids heat, reporting multi‑year good battery health.
• There’s debate over whether constant plug-in use “cycles” the battery; one commenter with design experience explains common controllers bypass the battery when full, with minimal top-off cycling.
• Multiple anecdotes suggest 80% limits materially slow degradation; others report little difference versus “just charge overnight.”

Standards, protocols & fragmentation

• Commenters are frustrated that while USB‑C is standardized physically, fast‑charge protocols remain fragmented (PD, QC, proprietary schemes).
• Many argue USB PD (especially with PPS) plus Qi should dominate to reduce incompatibility and confusion about which cable/charger combo gives fast charging.
• Some note PD was never fully deployed on USB‑A and nonstandard protocols will linger as long as A ports/cables remain common.

Replaceable batteries & service costs

• Several argue that user-replaceable batteries would make fast-charging worries mostly irrelevant and reduce waste; others value thinness, rigidity, and waterproofing more.
• There’s irritation that a cell costing only a few dollars translates into much higher in-store replacement costs.

Technical accuracy & critique of the article

• A technically minded commenter criticizes the article’s conclusion that “slow 5 W charging is best,” arguing:
  • Heat and time spent at high state-of-charge matter more than sheer wattage.
  • Fast charging up to ~80% at cool temps can be better than slow charging to 100% in warmth.
• Battery University is recommended within the thread as a more reliable educational resource.

Purpose and Use Case

• Framed as “runbooks that run”: operational documentation plus executable commands in one place.
• Aimed at real-world workflows that are too ad‑hoc or risky to fully automate via CI/CD, but too important to leave as copy‑paste snippets in wikis or spreadsheets.
• Supporters emphasize: easier, less error‑prone than copying commands from Confluence / text files; good for incident response when on‑call staff are unfamiliar with a system.

Comparison to Notebooks & Literate Programming

• Some see it as closer to literate programming for shells than to Jupyter: prose + commands + output together.
• Others ask why not use Jupyter (! / % shell commands) or tools like marimo, polyglot notebooks, Livebook.
• Objections to Jupyter for ops: Python/runtime dependency hell, fragile environments, and cell execution order issues.
• Org‑mode / org‑babel, BBEdit shell worksheets, Runme, xiki, and similar tools are cited as prior art with similar ideas.

Reproducibility, Ordering & State

• Concerns that “notebook style” encourages partial execution, leading to hidden state and ordering bugs in runbooks.
• Author mentions planned dependency system (e.g., “A must run before B”, time‑bounded) and the need for branching and idempotent steps.
• Extended side‑discussion: reproducibility vs “blobs of state” (Docker images, Terraform state, Nix/Guix, Bazel).
  • Some argue for declarative tools and explicit state; others want tools that infer and dump current state automatically.

Local‑First, Rot & Environment Drift

• Skeptics argue local‑first workflows risk “rot”: commands rely on each person’s evolving laptop environment.
• Counterpoint: containers or centralized execution could mitigate this, but then it’s less truly “local”.

Open Source, Stack, and Business Model

• Desktop app built with Tauri (Rust) and a backend using Elixir/Phoenix plus some Rust.
• Plan: desktop app will be open‑sourced later; server likely proprietary.
• Sparks a strong debate:
  • One side criticizes “open source cosplay” and mixing free/proprietary components.
  • Others argue developers must be able to build paid products on top of OSS to sustain work.

Value vs Simple Shell Scripts

• Some remain unconvinced, asking what it adds over plain scripts with comments and editor “send to terminal” features.
• Fans argue the integrated UI, logging, history, and easier updating of “living docs” justify a dedicated tool, especially for teams and less‑technical operators.

Computers, Phones, and Device Economics

• 1990s PCs were expensive ($1–2k+), low-end models were “terrible,” and became obsolete within ~3 years; good laptops were several thousand dollars.
• Today, capable laptops and desktops last 5–10 years and can often be obtained cheaply or second-hand; SSDs are seen as a transformative upgrade.
• Debate over smartphones as the new “$1k computer”: some note shorter lifespans; others argue most people buy cheaper models and $1k now is far less in real terms than $1k in 1995.
• Mixed feelings on built‑in rechargeable batteries: far more convenient than 90s disposables, but concerns over fire risk and non-replaceability.

Connectivity, “Electronic Leash,” and Social Coordination

• Some miss the 70s–90s era of limited reachability, slower pace, and face‑to‑face coordination.
• Others tame smartphones via silent mode, minimal notifications, or a dedicated “on/off” phone.
• Coordinating kids’ activities: disagreement whether “play dates” were rare or common in the 80s/90s; consensus that flakiness has increased with easy last‑minute texting.

Household and Everyday Tech Improvements

• Frequently praised: microfiber cloths (but contested for microplastic pollution), filtered/ESL milk, frozen vegetables, SSDs, induction stoves, air fryers, pressure cookers, sous‑vide, and accurate food thermometers.
• Some note medical advances (cancer, cardiac care, HIV, laparoscopy) as truly life‑changing, more so than consumer gadgets.
• Others criticize ubiquitous HVAC, LEDs’ light quality, USB’s design and security, and power windows’ failure modes.

Media, Streaming, and Choice Overload

• Streaming is lauded for time‑shifting, no ads, and easy access to global back catalogs.
• Yet physical media’s scarcity sometimes made decisions easier; people now pre‑curate watchlists to avoid endless scrolling.

Social and Global Changes

• Strong appreciation for cheap or free international video calls and translation tools, enabling routine contact with distant family.
• Smoking bans in indoor spaces are viewed as a major quality‑of‑life improvement.
• Some argue the article underplays broader issues like power concentration, poverty reduction, and “enshittification” of consumer products.

Overall Attitudes

• Many see the list as a useful counterweight to online doom narratives.
• Others find it consumer‑tech‑centric, suburban/wealthy‑skewed, and missing tradeoffs; several call for a companion list of regressions since the 90s.

Good vs bad habits and human nature

• Several comments note it’s far easier to fall into “bad” habits (overeating, substances) than build “good” ones.
• Evolutionary speculation: in environments of scarcity, “if it feels good, keep doing it” was adaptive; modern abundance turns those drives against us.
• Some argue that “good” vs “bad” is relative to context: carbs and grains both enabled civilization and modern obesity.

Ambiguity of the “21-day” claim

• Many readers initially assumed the title meant habits form in less than 21 days, then felt misled when the article says ~66 days on average, up to 254.
• Others read it as “not in just 21 days,” i.e., more than 21.
• Discussion touches on how marketing language, omitted qualifiers (“only,” “even”), and everyday phrasing bias interpretations.

Huge individual variation and anecdotes

• Stories range from smoking taking days to become addictive and years to fully shake, to diets that “click” instantly then later collapse with life changes.
• Some people feel a strong habit by ~3 weeks; others say 3 months for solidity, 3+ years for permanence, or even ~10 years for deep character change.
• A weight-loss anecdote: first three weeks felt hardest, then effort dropped sharply.

Identity, emotion, and neurodiversity

• A recurring theme: habits stick when integrated into identity (“I am a runner” vs “I’m trying to run”).
• Emotion-driven habits (comfort, relief) are reported as especially hard to change.
• People with ADHD and bipolar describe radically different experiences: some say routines barely form and vanish quickly; others find deliberate routine crucial for coping.

Mechanics: effort–reward, triggers, and habit stacking

• One model: habits depend on effort/reward ratio; strong rewards can wire habits quickly (including addictions).
• Tactics mentioned: shrinking behaviors (tiny habits), chaining new actions onto existing ones, and using clear triggers.
• A course framework: habits should be tangible, self-contained, done daily, tied to triggers, and often built in tiny steps (e.g., just picking up floss at first).

How quickly habits form—and vanish

• Multiple comments note that habits can stop in just a few missed days, even after years.
• High stakes (money, pain, scarcity of water) can make adoption nearly instant, as with gym-going for access to showers.

Diet, health, and environment

• Long subthread on “healthy breakfast” shows uncertainty in nutrition science but rough agreement on: fewer ultra-processed foods, more whole foods, and enough protein and fiber.
• Several emphasize environment over willpower: stock the right groceries and design surroundings so the “good” habit is the path of least resistance.

Culture, stakes, and “tough times”

• Some religious and cultural practices use ~40-day rituals, interpreted as deliberate habit-building periods.
• A side discussion explores whether hardship and high stakes forge stronger habits and character, versus the downsides of comfort and “babying” children.

Scope and Goals of Sapphire

• Sapphire is explicitly alpha and currently reuses Homebrew’s bottles and casks; it’s essentially a new CLI and installer on top of Homebrew’s infrastructure.
• The author built it for personal use because Homebrew felt too slow and awkward to wrap for a planned declarative macOS “system manager.”
• Near‑term focus: make bottle and cask installs fast and reliable; source builds are acknowledged as hard due to Homebrew’s Ruby DSL and incomplete JSON metadata.
• Longer‑term: introduce a more machine‑readable packaging format (e.g. YAML/TOML/Lua‑based) and add declarative configuration, not to replace Homebrew’s repo but to sit atop it.
• Several commenters ask for a clear “why”/rationale section and feature differentiation in the README.

Homebrew Strengths and Infrastructure

• Many view Homebrew’s main win over MacPorts/Fink as UX/DX: easy formulas, Ruby DSL, GitHub workflow, rapid package updates via automated checks.
• A maintainer explains there are two halves: the relatively simple client, and the large, complex backend (formula DSL, CI, automation) which is hard to “rewrite in Rust.”
• Some note Homebrew has improved a lot in recent years (faster commands, less Ruby evaluation).

Homebrew Pain Points

• Complaints: slow installs (serialized downloads/installs, auto‑updates), heavy animations/verbosity, cache bloat, difficulty debugging breakage.
• Architectural grievances: no sudo by design, single shared prefix under one user, fragile with multi‑user setups, discouraging non‑standard prefixes and beta macOS installs.
• Policy grievances: removal of build options/custom flags, opt‑out analytics, “rolling/unstable” feel vs Debian‑style stability.
• Some employers ban Homebrew because it enables installing unvetted third‑party software.

Performance and Parallelism

• Several argue Homebrew is mostly I/O‑bound; language choice matters less than parallel downloads and better scheduling.
• A maintainer says parallel downloads are limited deliberately to avoid overloading GitHub and third‑party hosts; smaller projects can be more aggressive.
• Long subthread debates P2P/Bittorrent and hybrid CDN approaches; consensus is that complexity and reliability concerns make this unattractive for a mass‑market client.

Language Choice and “Rewrite in Rust” Debate

• Some celebrate a Rust implementation as inherently faster, safer, easier to distribute.
• Others push back on “rewrite in Rust” as a shallow value proposition, especially when the core workload is downloads and unpacking.
• Comparisons drawn to uv vs pip: big gains there came from better dependency resolution and parallelism, not Rust alone.

Compatibility, Alternatives, and Missing Features

• Sapphire’s Homebrew compatibility (bottles/casks, same terminology) is seen as both a strength and a limitation; full independence would require a new packaging DSL and large porting effort.
• Requests for differentiation include: easier universal binaries, per‑user installs, better multi‑user stories, pinning versions, and more declarative setups (some cite Brew Bundle, Nix, and home‑manager as inspiration).
• Multiple commenters stick with or praise MacPorts, Nix, or other tools; some just want an apt-get‑like experience on macOS.

UX, Terminology, and Naming

• Many dislike Homebrew’s beer metaphors (keg, cask, tap, bottle) and want standard terms like “package” and “repository.”
• Others find whimsical terminology acceptable since most users only run brew install.
• Sapphire’s command name is viewed as too long/hard to type; suggestions include shorter CLIs and separating project name from binary name. The author is open to renaming and later cleaning up terminology.

Atlantis: Allegory vs. Historical Place

• Many commenters argue Atlantis is an explicit Platonic invention: a moral‑political allegory about hubris, seafaring democracies, and decay, akin to his other fictional devices (e.g., afterlife myths).
• They point to the convoluted “chain of transmission,” obvious anachronisms (war with Athens thousands of years before Athens existed), and lack of independent ancient references.
• Others counter that powerful myths (Troy, flood stories, Nibelungen, etc.) can preserve kernels of real events, so Atlantis might similarly derive from lost history.

Flood Myths and Geological Events

• The Black Sea Deluge hypothesis is repeatedly brought up as a candidate for the Genesis flood and Near Eastern myths.
• Critics note key mismatches: Genesis describes waters receding and land re‑emerging, whereas the Black Sea remains a sea; Ararat’s location doesn’t fit; and there is no evidence of a literal global flood.
• Megafloods (e.g., Storegga slide affecting Doggerland) are cited to show real catastrophic events, but commenters stress they don’t validate specific scriptural narratives.

Survey Semantics and Public Belief

• Several argue the cited survey question (“civilizations such as Atlantis”) is ambiguous: many respondents may simply be thinking of known advanced ancient states (Maya, Inca, Egypt, China), not a sunken super‑civilization.

Richat Structure and Sahara‑Atlantis Theories

• A substantial subthread debates whether the Eye of the Sahara could be Atlantis’s capital.
• Proponents cite concentric rings, nearby high ground, former green Sahara, supposed flood features, and concentrations of stone tools; they emphasize the hypothesis is falsifiable but under‑investigated.
• Skeptics respond that Richat is a well‑understood natural formation; Plato’s dimensions, layout, harbor, and polity don’t match; and there are no walls, pottery, metals, or urban remains—only routine Stone Age artifacts.
• Younger Dryas impact claims are challenged; the mainstream view favors glacial meltwater/Ocean circulation explanations, with no confirmed impact crater.

Lost Advanced Civilizations and Pyramids

• Some suggest Ice Age sea‑level rise or cataclysms could have erased advanced coastal civilizations, possibly linked to Egyptian pyramids or other megalithic sites.
• Others push back that pyramid construction and similar works are well within known ancient capabilities (timber, ramps, labor organization), and that supposed “impossible precision” or missing tools is overstated.
• Commenters warn that “ancient ur‑civilization” narratives often echo older racist frameworks that deny indigenous peoples’ achievements.

Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Pseudoarchaeology

• One camp insists that without material culture, genetic traces, or corroborating texts, a globe‑spanning 11k‑year‑old civilization or Atlantis‑empire is effectively disproven for practical purposes.
• Another camp stresses epistemic humility: absence of evidence is not proof of non‑existence, and unexplored sites (e.g., Sahara) warrant open‑minded inquiry.
• There is significant criticism of modern popularizers of “lost civilization” ideas, accused of cherry‑picking data, avoiding rigorous testing, and encouraging scientifically illiterate conspiratorial thinking.