I think it's rather the opposite - there's way too much going on in their life, specifically stuff that they have no control over, so they vent all that stress wherever they can.

Disagree. I think when people are that busy they don't have time to find and attack a corporation on BlueSky.

You could say the same about most Internet activity: busy people don't have time to post on HN, or make stupid LinkedIn posts. Yet here we all are, reading and writing despite our busy startup lives.

Oh, my bad, I should've phrased it differently. I didn't mean that they're necessarily busy and have to handle a lot of matters, but rather that a lot of things are happening around them. It surely can be stressful even if one's not actively involved in something, but if they're merely witnessing something happening.

> HTML is about semantic markup, not visual markup.

Yeah... when it was meant for documents. In practice, modern websites are not documents - at best, they have a document or a few (like an article, or a post) embedded somewhere inside something else: an application, a designed page - basically, layout and presentation but not a document. HTML was never truly designed to do anything like this and it will always remain the clay feet part of this colossus.

The reason people still use <h1> or other "semantic" tags is only because of that idea that search engines give more "weight" to text in those tags, not because they care about semantics or other formal stuff. Otherwise they would've kept slapping styled <divs>.

I have always argued that there needs to be an entirely different language for websites, something semantically closer to XUL, XAML or QML. Best we've ever got are various custom DSLs that render to HTML/CSS/JS combo, conveniently hiding the underlying mess under the rug.

> What's going to happen when someone can make a competing movie in their style with just a prompt?

Nothing? Just like how if some studio today invests millions of man-hours and does a competing movie in Studio Ghibli's aesthetic (but not including any Studio Ghibli's characters, branding, etc. - basically, not the copyrightable or trademarkable stuff) nothing out of ordinary is going to happen.

I mean, artistic style is not copyrightable, right?

You are missing the point entirely. If you can make a movie with just a prompt, who is going to invest the money creating something like a Ghibli movie just to have it ripped off? Instead people will just rip off what has already been done and everything just stagnates.

How is "movies and other great works of art that used to cost tens of millions of dollars to make now cost tens of dollars to make" a bad thing?

It means art can get more ambitious. Ghibli made their mark, and made their money. Now it's time for the next generation to have a turn.

Can you please explain how did you jump to this conclusion?

I fail to see how artistic expression would cease to be a thing and how people will stop liking novelty. And as long as those are a thing, original styles will also be a thing.

If anything, making the entry barriers lower would result in more original styles, as art is [at least] frequently an evolutionary process, where existing ideas meet novel ones and mix in interesting ways. And even for the entirely novel (from-scratch, if that's a thing) ideas will still keep appearing - if someone thinks of something, they're still free to express themselves, as it was always the case. I cannot think of why people would stop painting with brushes, fingers or anything else.

Art exists because of human nature. Nothing changes in this regard.

I'm sorry, but I do not think I understand the idea why and how Studio Ghibli is being "ripped off" in this scenario.

As I've said, art styles are not considered copyrightable. You say I'm missing the point but I fail to see why. I've used lack of copyright protection as a reality check, a verifiable fact that can be used to determine the current consensus on the matter. Based on this lack of legal protection, I'm concluding that the societies have considered it's not something that needs to be protected, and thus that there is no "ripping off" in replicating a successful style. I have no doubts there are plenty of people who would think otherwise (and e.g. say that current state of copyright is not optimal - which can be very true), but they need to argue about copyright protections not technological accessibility. The latter merely exposes the former (by drastically lowering the cost barriers), but is not the root issue.

I also have doubts about your prediction of stagnation, particularly because you seem to ignore the demand side. People want novelty and originality, it was always the case and always will be (or at least for as long as human nature doesn't change). Things will change for sure (they always do), but I don't think a stagnation is a realistic scenario.

Hate to say this but the incentive is growth, not progress. Progress is what enabled the growth, but is also extremely hard to plan and deliver. On the other hand, hype is probably somewhat easier and well-tested approach so no surprise lot of the effort goes into marketing. Markets had repeatedly confirmed that there aren't any significant immediate repercussions for cranking up BS levels in marketing materials, while there are some rewards when it works.

> any hopes for a human society that place reason above emotion are fundamentally unachievable

If you haven't read it, you may enjoy Robert Sapolsky's "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will". I haven't yet finished it (only halfway through the book) but I found it a very fascinating read so far, no matter whenever one agrees with the conclusions or not. And I think it resonates and kind of confirms your comment, coming at it from a neurological viewpoint.

The book basically outlines which parts of the brain are responsible for our decision making. While I understand that he's drastically [over]simplifying things for readers' sake (as it's always the case with pop-sci), it provides a nice overview (a bunch of fun facts, with references to the actual scientific research where they came from) of how our decisions are heavily influenced by a lot of various things, in the context of your comment specifically - the processes going on in our brains that we can roughly call "emotions".

Services that take on Google can not just win over some user base but even become profitable (see Kagi's example), so it's not strictly about $0 price tag. But they gotta be really good (for some target audience), and the hard part is beating the already established offerings, of which there are plenty and covering for every kind of crowd I can think of. I wish MZLA luck, but given all the Mozilla Foundation history (which started amazing but is less than stellar in terms of recent PR) I'm quite skeptical.

Game-changer... how? There are at least two players in email space that provide encrypted email and various auxiliary suites (Protonmail and Tuta), plus at least one well-trusted well-respected email service (Fastmail), and of course people can always self-host if they dare. What revolutionary they could possibly realistically bring in areas privacy and security to be an actual "game-changer"?

Not saying it cannot possibly be - just that I cannot think of any novel way how it would deserve a title like this in such a particularly tricky niche as email suite service.

I'm sorry, I don't really know Airflow, but what's the point of `@task.agent`, as compared to plain old `return my_agent.run_sync(...)`? To me it feels like a more restrictive[1], and possibly less intuitive[2] API.

[1]: Limited to what decorator arguments can do. I suspect it could become an issue with `@task.branch` if some post-processing would be needed to adjust for smaller models' finickinesses.

[2]: As the final step is described at the top of the function.

Disclaimer: author of the SDK here.

It is _potentially_ more restrictive than writing pure Python functions, but the plus side is that we can interject certain Airflow-specific features into how the agent runs. And this isn't mean for someone who knows agents inside & out / wants the low-level customizability.

The best example of this today is log groups: Airflow lets you log things out as part of a "group" which has some UI abstractions to make it easier. This SDK takes the raw agent tool calls and turns them each into a log group, so you can see a) at a high level what the agent is doing, and b) drill down into a specific tool call to understand what's happening within the tool call.

To your point about the `@task.llm_branch`, the SDK & Pydantic AI (which the SDK uses under the hood) will re-prompt the LLM up to a certain number of attempts if it receives output that isn't the name of a downstream task. So there shouldn't be much finickiness.

I'm afraid that'll only result in some people using those inappropriately then other people using `reflect` to mutate those objects. Just like with "private" methods and fields when library authors create a good library but don't expose something crucial for anther person's task at hand.

Man I can't remember whichever black magic I invoked to bust into some C# sealed classes for some office application.

But I was glad it existed because it enabled a whole set of valuable business automation at the time.

Nothing in any programming language I’m aware of prevents you from opening /proc/<pid>/mem and changing the state arbitrarily. I don’t think we should avoid adding features to programming languages because a malicious coworker might work around them.