We didn’t have Costco in our area when I was a kid, but iirc that’s why my parents stopped going to Sam’s Club: any money they saved on buying cheaper bulk things went into buying random extras.
I resisted joining Costco for many years, because it seemed too culty, or just too popular in general (with my assumption being that most popular things are bad). Eventually they sucked me in though, and yes, it really is good.
Costco actually has a better checkout experience than most places IMO. They always have basically all lanes open, and the employees are efficient at moving people through.
I love Wegmans for most groceries but their checkouts seem to be getting worse.
It's probably very store specific. If you know the Market Basket in Somerville, MA, it's got a legendary produce section. I've been to locations in NH with crap.
IMO H-Mart is the safest bet in the Boston area for high quality produce (outside of farmers markets, natch)
Yup, and this is exacerbated by how services like Google Flights work. There's little visibility into any kind of "quality" metric, but prices are always front and center. So why would you optimize based on anything else?
I guess some of the legacy carriers are now drinking champagne since they got rid of one of the more aggressive ULCC competitors.
However, if you wait till your competition goes broke, you need to ensure you survive long enough and stay big enough so you don't get bought. That's not exactly easy.
Nah that’s silly, because Google has been doing all that already for the past quarter century. This “age verification” shit isn’t going to move the needle on the Google-created dystopia we already have.
The time to worry about not having a digital cage was quite awhile ago. Instead tech people pushed Chrome and Android and Gmail and ads onto us.
It's framed as being only for social media. But, really, it's about network access. Without network access, it's difficult to thrive in the modern world.
Are you not alarmed at the possibility that a person's network access could be cut arbitrarily and at-will?
Why? Kids have had access to the internet for over 30 years. What is the tiktok brainwashing (I don't use it), and how do you qualify the danger of it from say google news brainwashing, or even (gasp) public school brainwashing? I mean, if we're going to group ban information, at least let people in the local communities make those decisions. Otherwise, we're going to get the Epstein class making these decisions.
I see the societal turmoil and strife this will feed as much more dangerous and concrete than some abstract high-minded discussion about slippery slopes. Our society is being torn apart as we speak. We don't have the luxury of philosophizing about what-ifs.
This feels different to me than complaining about the font or whatever. I don’t want to read or comment on anything not written by a human. I also agree with GP here that using AI instead of your own words has bearing on the content itself, insofar as it’s a signal that the author doesn’t care enough to write it themself.
As a corollary, I also want to know if a project posted here is predominantly vibe-coded, since that to me is a signal that it may be of lower quality, have fewer edge cases worked out, and is more likely to be abandoned in the near future.
Caring enough to put in the effort of thinking and writing is not a "tangential issue". Laziness is a substantive defect, and sadly, I think that kelseyfrog has clocked this one correctly. There are borderline cases, but the cadence of this tweet thread is unmistakeable.
We don't have to live like this. We don't have to accept it. We don't have to upvote it even if we agree (as I do) with the explicit point. The medium is the message, and the message that this poster is putting out here is that online age verification isn't actually worth getting that worked up about.
AI-generated content being passed off as human-written is not a tangential issue. HN staff agree, because posting AI generated comments is explicitly forbidden. I suspect the only reason this isn't extended to submissions is because pretty much all articles about AI are also written by AI, and effectively forbidding positive discussion of AI is obviously against the interests of a VC firm.
HN's guidelines were written under the assumption that submitted articles about [thing] would be written by people who care about [thing] and made a good faith effort to write something interesting about [thing], so it's only fair that any comments would be expected to respect the author's effort and discuss the article in equally good faith.
This assumption completely falls apart when you add AI generated submissions into the mix. If the "author" didn't care and thus couldn't be bothered to write about [thing] themselves, choosing to instead outsource that work to an LLM while they supposedly did something they deemed more valuable with the time they would've spent writing, then why should commenters be expected to dedicate more effort into their discussion of the article than the author dedicated to writing it? It's a bit unfair towards the commenters, don't you think?
reply