The other replies have explained what's jumping out but I'd agree that without the other surrounding sentences of the article's introduction I'd be inclined to think that quoted sentence by itself might be human. The full text, however, doubles down on the AI-smelling constructions and IMHO almost certainly indicates some AI provenance.
It might be normal language but lets say maybe 5% of real human blog writers use short punchy phrases like that. The noticeable problem is now its 50% of blog posts because almost every single AI authored post uses the same phrasing, it's tiring knowing you are just reading ChatGPT output. Its usually part of a low-effort funnel to guide you to some product/service.
Human journalists and marketing copy writers have been writing like this for at least 50 years, if not considerably longer.
I am exhausted by so many people calling writing out as AI without sufficient proof other than writing style. Some things are more obvious, sure... maybe I'm just too stupid to see a lot of the rest of it? But so much of what gets called out seems incredibly familiar to me compared with traditional print media I've been reading my entire life.
I'm starting to wonder if a lot of people just have poor literacy skills and are knee-jerk labeling anything that looks well written as AI.
You're right that (some) marketing copy writers have been writing in this style for decades, but suddenly every second tech blogger has assumed the same voice in the past 2 years. Not everyone is as sensitive to it. I read this crap daily so I've developed an awareness and I'm confident in calling it out.
I don't think I've personally seen a single false positive on HN. If anything, too much slop goes through uncontested.
> If anything, too much slop goes through uncontested.
It's actually insane opening up /r/webdev and similar subreddits and seeing dozens of AI authored posts with 50+ comments and maybe a single person calling it out. Makes me feel crazy. It's not as much of a problem here, but there is absolutely a writing style that suddenly 50% of submissions are using. It's always to promote something and watching people fall for it over and over again is upsetting.
MinGW and MinGW-64/MSYS2 are just as inscrutable, fragile and new-user-hostile. The fact that you have to choose between MinGW (which has a 64 bit version) or MinGW64 (completely separate codebases maintained by different people as far as I can tell) is just the first in a long obstacle course of decisions, traps, and unexplained acronyms/product names. There are dozens of different versions, pre-built toolchains and packages to throw you off-course if you choose the wrong one.
If you're just a guy trying to compile a C application on Windows, and you end up on the mingw-w64 downloads page, it's not exactly smooth sailing: https://www.mingw-w64.org/downloads/
> If you're just a guy trying to compile a C application on Windows, and you end up on the mingw-w64 downloads page, it's not exactly smooth sailing: https://www.mingw-w64.org/downloads/
One of the options on that page is MSYS2, which I specifically listed above alongside MinGW-w64. And that download page is much smoother sailing: https://www.msys2.org/
There are other options on the MinGW-w64 page, but most of those are for cross-compiling from non-Windows operating systems (which conceivably could include something running on WSL these days), and of the Windows-host options, the only two with “many” packages are Cygwin and MSYS2 (though WinLibs looks interesting).
I would guess that there needs to be a clear, cheap, easy to use alternative to discord in order for a large numbers of communities to move over. It probably has to be a single clear alternative as well – multiple will exacerbate the decision cost
Gilded used to exist but it's seemingly gone now. The power Discord has is quite insane, to the point where people haven't even seriously tried to compete it seems.
> > Microsoft has now confirmed in a statement to The Verge that it has received this negative feedback loud and clear, and is planning to make some important changes in 2026.
This line isn't in the article or the archived version of the article you linked - where did it come from?
I’m not sure it’s quite fair to call this hypocrisy. Lumo was introduced separately after the Proton Unlimited subscription, and it was never claimed to be included in Unlimited (they also have a handful of other products like Standard Notes that are not included)
Funny, I disagree. I think copilot truly sucks compared to the other options. But you can uninstall copilot, so I don’t see why it bothers people at all.
It has reappeared on mine after mandatory windows updates which is frustrating and also it looks like it will be arriving on my TV soon too without the option to remove it.
Microsoft will remove something after an outcry and then will later get it back with no option to remove. This happens all the time. People have no attention spans these day as they move to the new outrage hashtag of the day, so this works.
Why should anyone have to take action against it? Good products don't need to be forced upon users, an obnoxious ad in one of the dozen places Windows shows advertising would have sufficed. People even willingly fork over cash for ChatGPT and Claude and those don't even have OS ad placements or forced installs.
I can't figure this one out - is it only a browser extension? The site keeps trying to trick me into installing a browser extension, which seems incredibly sketchy
Have you upgraded to the new .mdc file format? I didn't get around to .cursorrules before this format came out, but I'm finding .mdc is reliable if configured well (e.g. with the right file extensions)
My understanding of the docs is that these are all handled the same: Cursor just adds any rules file to the context for each request, and that's it. I don't believe there is any mechanism by which to call special attention to particular rules in the context window. I could try renaming the file though.
reply