A markup language can be an image format. The "G" is for "Graphics" after all.

> Why on earth would you drop [Glyphosate]?

You wouldn't. You'd drop the conversation regarding whether it was safe.

If you're constructing your unsandboxed parent document HTML using string concatenation, you might as well not use the sandboxed iframe at all. But presumably someone who bothers to sandbox untrusted content also knows about setAttribute(), or the srcdoc JS property.

You can entity-encode the content in the srcdoc= attribute to robustly solve that problem, or populate it via the DOM.

s/"/"/g

I've always tried to write code for future maintainers first. That is often me.

I've been opposed to all of it the whole time. But yes, let's stop being hypocritical.

You press the button to capture the photo. As you note, a different verb is used. When I order take-out, I'm not "creating" it.

It kind of seems the opposite to me. I'm seeing so much marketing budget and and positive media exposure. It's the people that don't like it because of what it is and what it represents.

I would love to see this supposed "positive media exposure".

All I see are doom and gloom forecasts, "bubble" talk, and how bad it is for the environment.

I've heard this argument, and I just don't get it. I've never heard anyone complain about having to push their own shopping carts. No one pays you to push the cart. Should they? If you want the cart pushed, you push the cart. If you want to check out, you check out. If either one of those is a hardship for you, go elsewhere.

This was an actual thing (complaining about this) when super-markets started to take over from general stores and butcher shops et c. Having to go get your bag of sugar off the warehouse shelf yourself rather than a clerk fetching it for you is unpaid labor on the part of the shopper (and is also not automation).

Oregon recently eliminated their mandatory gas station pump attendants. It seems most people considered that a good thing. For those that prefer the premium experience of having a human cashier, it seems that for now, they're still easy to find. For establishments that regularly expect to have large orders with dozens of items, they'll probably continue. It seems there's less to gain for large complicated orders.

Or perhaps it will go the way of smoking in restaurants. Some people definitely preferred it, but in the US anyway, it's pretty hard to find, if it's even legal anywhere.

I'd probably be happier about self-checkout if I had previously been expected to tip checkers.

Customers are paying their wages either way.

I've always felt this is an absurd statement. Yes customers are paying the wages of the people working at the store, that's literally how basic exchange of goods and services has worked forever.

Like what is the alternative? Businesses sell things they sell those things for more than they make and then they use that money to pay people to work for them. People agree to work for them expecting they will be paid primarily from the money made by the business saling things to customers.

Like what is the alternative businesses pay their employees from some magic pool of money that you get the key too when you file articles of incorporation?

At the end of the day the customer is always paying the wages of the employees, that's literally how it worked since ever. Which is honestly an improvement where the local lord would take 30% of whatever you grew and in exchange would give you diddly and squat.

I never meant to imply that there was an alternative, or that there was anything wrong with it.

Just that there's not so much difference between tipping a gas station attendant and paying the employer of a grocery checker.

Two thousand years ago, most authors didn't know how to read or write. The erudite author would dictate their words verbally to a scribe, who had learned these specialized skills. Then other scribes and copyists could copy out the manuscript. When Gutenberg made the printing press, more specialized skills emerged: that of typesetting and publishing and printing and all that.

These separations endured well into the 1960s, as secretaries were trained women who could type and take dictation, and their bosses would generally shout into their ears and/or a tape recording device to get their work done. "Diane, take a letter!" was a common trope in the office of yesterday.

When home computing, personal word-processing, and desktop publishing came on the scene, suddenly we had to learn how to type. Suddenly every high school student who needed to write a paper, we all needed to know how to type in order to produce research papers. This was unprecedented. Then with word processing and WYSIWYG, we needed to know fonts, and bold/underline/italic conventions, and this was also unprecdented, because previously this was done for us, behind the scenes, by professionals.

Ultimately all that page layout, and design and visual aesthetics, even finding clipart and adding it appropriately and tastefully, all of that skilled knowledge and labor fell upon the shoulders of the one who was writing a newsletter for a non-profit, or writing technical documentation, or designing an album/CD cover or something.

Eventually those specializations and skills became so democratized that everyone knew them but we all knew them badly. We could do a half-assed job of desktop publishing, whereas a Gutenberg publication in the 18th century could have been a true work of art that was replicated many times.

Now even the em-dash is vilified as a signifier of low-skill slop, when some of us actually took the time to read manuals of style and understand when/how to properly use hyphens, en-dash, and em-dash. But never mind that; elegant grammar and perfect spelling are now the hallmarks of a shitty LLM prompt and HN commenters can just tear down any article by falsely claiming it was AI-written, and you can sic your fake "AI-writing detectors" on anything and 99% tear it down because of your stupid faulty em-dash hueristics.

I’m not sure whether this is a bit of a joke about the broader thrust of my post, but I actually do think tons of the “automation” computers have given us is fake, for many of the reasons you suggest. I think it’s part of why the benefits of all this alleged automation have been more muted than one might expect (though not trivial, to be clear) and that it’s imposed costs in a bunch of ways that aren’t tracked on a P&L sheet but do make life less pleasant.

If GuinasEyebrows does not want to drive an appropriately security-hardened armored vehicle, then they should not expect that I will not jimmy the lock and hotwire it. If you see me drive it away, no you didn't.

People are responsible for their own actions. If you think shoplifting is morally acceptable, don't try to tell me that I didn't see it.

With about a month of practice you could learn to pick 95% of residential locks.

So free everything because homeowners didn't bother to secure their stuff!/s

Growing up our house physically did not have a lock. Keys never left vehicle ignitions. A frequent experience was buying a farm machinery part and picking it up after hours out of the back of somebody's truck.

Living in low trust societies sucks.

I've had friends bring people over to my house who just randomly stole things. I've dated women who stole money out of my wallet or if it'd leave $10 on the table they'd just take it.

Casual theft is just gross as is the need to constantly feel like you need to defend yourself from everyone you meet, but moreso the casual attitude people have towards it.

>Living in low trust societies sucks.

It does, but that trust is established top down. If businesses in this country act lawlessly with impunity, why would you expect people, especially if they are suffering because of some company's greed, to be the chump who acts nobly while seeing a society that rewards theft?

That is not a normative moral defense of this behavior, just a descriptive one. Why would anyone expect a normal person to see a company receiving a tariff refund for a tariff that person paid and then view stealing from them as a continuation of the theft that the company itself engaged in by not paying them back?

There's a disconnect because all of the accused corruption are big picture things people barely understand happening with shady political influence, corporate structure to avoid taxes, defrauding investors and those kinds of things.

When do these people that glorify their stealing interact with actual low-trust-society events from corporates? Almost never. They just hear about it on the news and social media influencers sharing stories.

These are people who have no idea what being shaken down for a bribe is like, have always benefitted from strong consumer protection laws, generous refund policies, and all around honesty in most every corporate interaction and the complaints they have are minor compared to their proud theft.

How often are you short changed at the store? Lied to about the weight of something you were sold? Received an adulterated or diluted product?

I see people on here all the time saying this tool or that model regressed. It used to be better.

There are clearly some pressures to make it worse. Like it's expensive to run. And unbelievably that it's under provisioned somehow.

Could you have looked at early Myspace and declared social media would only get better? By some measures it was already at its peak.

Personally I don't think coding agents will regress significantly as long as there is competitive pressure and independent benchmarks. Regulation is a risk because coding may be equivalent to general reasoning, and that might be limited for political / "safety" reasons.

Social media "regressed" from the point of view of users because the success metric from the network's point of view was value extraction per eyeball-minute. As long as there continue to be strong financial incentives to have the strongest coding model I think we'll see progress.