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

> there is nothing textual about the UIs being shown here.

Well, except:

> a 1:1 representation of the concept within character cells.

TUI is build from text, and living within its constraints and what it's engine (usually the terminal) allows. GUI is build from graphics, and has basically a pixel perfect control of its own. This is a very notable difference, especially at the time when these terms were coined.

> TUIs are generally built for effectiveness and power

No, this is a result of different architectures and their constraints.

> But once you start adding mouse clickable tabs, buttons, checkboxes etc. you

TUI and mouse are predating the GUI (more or less). We had them already 40-50 years ago at the dawn of interfaces. We are now just moving back to them for practical reasons.


I kinda disagree. Doing something about open questions which are bothering you can be valuable in itself, even if the result of the process is useless in the end. And usually you are also learning some valuable things along the way, or just push your life into a necessary direction. That isn't related to OCD or perfectionism, it's just gaining more control and insight about some aspects of your life.

> it's just gaining more control

Yes it is! And if you control everything, you won‘t make mistakes.


If your paycheck depends on fossils, then you will wholeheartedly sabotage renewables as much as you can.

It's a mix between decades of brainwashing, fossil-lobby having the bigger paychecks, unstable times, and all leaders fear to invest in something new and uncertain. In every industry/organization there is the old saying that nobody ever gets fired for supporting/using the established solutions. This is the same situation, there is more motivation for staying with the known paths, especially after there is strong propaganda against the new paths.

> and it just went up again in February 2026.

It actually went down, unless you are with a scam-company or had a time-limited offer run out.

> but _nobody_ "on the ground" is seeing it.

Everyone who cares is seeing it. You have to change your contract, that's how the market works. Too many people seem to not understand this aspect.


> Language constrains your perception of reality to only the set of concepts conceivable within that language.

It's the opposite. People make up new concepts all the time for which they have no words, to then give it a name. Language is composable, words and names are just a mean to improve communication, make it faster, more efficient.

> Agents who only speak Rust have no conception of what runtime errors are, for instance.

Agents don't really learn. They have a fixed set of data and everything new has to be pressed into the prompt. This is unrelated to language.


They can only conceive and reason about those concepts if the language they are using supports them. There are many concepts not yet expressed in language, but that doesn't mean that any single language can represent every concept.

> Build a pool.

How does this work without water?


The Earth has a functionally infinite amount of water. If it's dirty, clean it.


That's not how it works. Transporting water from a different location will be an extra cost. Cleaning will be an extra cost. And cleaning is also not perfect. Those who will need water, are usually not those who can afford all this. So at the end you are just moving the problems to someone else, out of greed and ignorance.


Not a problem. Countries should get rich first, then they can afford all of those costs and have money to spare.


We've been building canals for thousands of years.


California has droughts, but never water shortages.


Depends on the usage. According to news, there were water shortages in the past in California. Though, we are not talking just about California here.


Municipal water usage in California is only 20% of all water usage. The rest is almost entirely agriculture, and all that agriculture uses a strange system of water rights where you do not have to reduce consumption during a drought, and the last person in line instead absorbs all the drought problems.

This creates an insane political environment where the rich as fuck agribusiness which owns that final water right is incentivized to get that tiny municipal water usage reduced as much as possible to squeeze out a tiny bit more water for their own business, rather than reform the dumb water rights system which would ensure that they only shoulder a tiny tiny portion of drought scarcity but probably force them to pay a little bit for irrigation improvements or stop growing almonds as cheaply.

The only reason the rest of the country even knows about the California water situation is because those bottom rung agribusinesses are still wealthy as all fuck and have actively paid for national political campaigns


Most municipalities get their water out of the same system, it's just they need so much less so they get by. Also, of the 20% that used by urban water systems, 50% is for outdoor irrigation.

The definitive book on the subject is "Cadillac Desert"


The only shortages are for farmers, and a few isolated and very poor towns.

IMO, the (existing) towns should get more state support to have affordable safe domestic water. The shortage is not raw untreated water, but just transporting it and treating it.

The farmers? I sympathize, but they are trying to grow crops in an extremely fertile but arid valley. It's going to be constrained by the natural environment.


What are you talking about? Thunderbird has barely any progress in the last years. It's more busy with breaking and fixing things. Sure, there are reasons for it, but as a user, all I see is stalemate, while one addon after another is dying. Thunderbird Mobile is nice, and I hope Thunderbird Pro will be something good, but so far none of them are the big breakthroughs.


The question is also if this would then be a valid case of fair use.

Though, in the end, it's probably more a problem of how much AI companies can "donate" to the orange king to make it legal.


> That argument doesn’t fly, because they didn’t have the copyright to begin with.

Is this really the case? They only have no copyright for distributing it. But let's assume they bought a copy for personal usage (which they did in some cases), then this is similar to hacking companies Amazon-account and complaining about the e-books they legally use for internal purpose. I mean, it's not forbidden to base your work on copyrighted material, as long as it's different enough.


A company is not a person in this way. If a company wants all of their employees to read a book, they are not allowed to buy one copy and then make 5000 copies "for archival purposes - fair use" then share those copies to their employees. Similarly, if they want to base a work on a copyrighted work, they can't just buy a copy for personal use (nevermind the fact that most of the data the LLMs are trained on is not even available in this format, it is only available under a license) and then use it in a commercial product in this way - not if the product demonstrably contains copies of that work.


> They only have no copyright for distributing it.

No, they don’t have the copyright to download it either. It’s in the name: the right to copy (other things are also included, such as adaptations and performances).

> let's assume they bought a copy for personal usage

If it’s for personal usage, then training a commercial LLM does not apply. When you buy a DVD of a movie you have the personal right to watch it at home, you don’t have the right to play it on the street.


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

Search: