hypfer

Enforcing boundaries and saying no have gotten more important than ever, now that violation of either is automated at superhuman speeds.

FWIW, there might be a silver lining in this. A lot of dysfunction in the current state of tech can (IMO) be traced back to violation of boundaries. This might lead to a cultural shift. Though, that might also just be wishful thinking on my part.

___

> I would love to hear your tips, but still be relevant in this AI era, so my boss does not fire me.

If your boss fires you because you didn't multiply your performance by doing more work in the same time (without your compensation changing), that's not your fault but simply your employer trying to squeeze you harder and that not working out.

Always keep that in mind in these discussions.

Which isn't to say that you should not improve efficiency and all, but it needs to be organic. If something inorganic is asked, then the (moral) failure is on the asker and not the askee.

I'm not quite sure what your point is tbh.

Do not even try?

I suspect that the energy required scales exponentially though, and, eventually, it might just become less of a hassle to just behave.

That and the fact that each increase in difficulty filters out people that do not have the capability to pass it. So the pool shrinks every time.

Though, valid counterpoint: Eventually prefabs emerge and get shared.

But then we innovate once more. We always did. We always will

> This is completely crazy. How could someone point out that assuming evil intentions is not a good way to interact with people without being accused of doing the same thing as the FBI telling MLK to kill himself?

I was genuinely wondering if we would see the end of it, but of course, no.

But I like this, because it's such an obvious strawman and bad faith reinterpration by an account consisting of random jumbled letters.

Thank you. This is background radiation one can live with. Thanks for making things normal again.

> It seems likely this comment is a waste but… no, that clearly was not a personal attack, and going through life treating comments like those as personal attacks seems like a good way to be miserable.

I'm not sure if can truly let this pass as a more sophisticated construct, but I do appreciate the opener that already invalidates dismissal.

That's a good tactic. Thank you for playing.

I feel great btw :) Thank you for your concern.

An interesting realisation there which I believe will shape the upcoming years of discussion spaces is that one can shift the burden of proof there.

Instead of leaving it with the moderation to prove without a doubt that someone is trolling, one can default to assume trolling and demand prove that it is not the case.

As it is impossible to bring up proof for either of those things, the house wins and people make damn sure to quintuple-check if their messaging is decent.

I don't think that that is a good solution, but the status quo was horrible, so maybe the pendulum swinging in another direction for a while might help us discover saner solutions.

> If you’re having to look through layers and layers of jargon, misdirection, and plausible deniability to find the toxicity, is it possible there’s a roarscach element to it?

Are we going to play "prove me right" here? :D

Come on, this is just a direct personal attack. Go play better. Hide it with a more elaborate construct.

Not really, because a generic observation cannot be expressed specifically. So that's a weird question to begin with.

It is true that this is heavily moderated and that this is one of the more pleasant spaces, but it is also precisely the moderation style that is being weaponized.

As I said, the toxicity gets hidden in layers and layers of jargon, misdirection and plausible deniability. It gets a veneer of civilty applied, which, somewhat surprisingly, makes it hit even harder, because fighting back is a lot harder, as there is nothing immediately visible to fight back against. It just stings.

It's not just attacking but simultaneously gaslighting. Which has been what the whole internet has been doing since everything became twitter fwiw.

What I said is also not to be understood as "HN bad", because if I would feel that way, I would not be commenting here.

HN is one of those places, actually.

There are quite a few covert psychopaths on here that happily twist knives and hurt people.

It's just hidden under layers and layers of indirection, jargon and plausible deniability. Not unlike your standard boardroom I guess.

That letter reads almost identical to internet hate comments. Wild. I guess the tactics have always been the same then.

At least now we have LLMs that can produce this kind of stuff at human-overwhelming rates, so that is progress.

I know Show HN rules want you to be extra nice to people, but this is indistinguishable in execution from a honeypot, so anyone uploading their company slides to some random service like this one will likely be fired on the spot for gross negligence.

I see your idea and I suppose there is value in it, but the problem of screen sharing is basically fictional compared to the real problem of someone just uploading company data (+ metadata!) to a random service some random person came up with.

Screen sharing only shares pixels and does so through parties that the economy considers trustworthy enough.

This is not going to work as the SaaS you seem to envision it to be. It might work for a self-hosted internal service thing or a group of friends though.

___

Thinking about this, I suspect that at least one naive bored corporate guy browsing HN will have tried this out with a random pptx they had lying around on their work computer. The data is now.. somewhere.

So this could be an actual honeypot.

Yeah exactly. I was referring to exactly such businesses.

But, to put my previous point more bluntly, if you do this, you cannot hire idiots, because they otherwise start ruining everything.

Someone needs to hire idiots though, which is why this concept cannot work for all.

The alternative to that is idiot removal, however, that has proven to be a rather complex ethics problem where we've collectively rightfully decided that it is so radioactive, we will no longer entertain such thoughts.

My point is that with such a wealth cap, we will get some co-ops, but we also will have to get something else. And I have not yet found an idea what that could be

I hate to say it, but this kinda looks like that whole tariff horror show might have had a point.

Though, of course, if this has been in operation for five years already, that cannot have been the spark for this. But it might be what it needs to become fully viable.

Whether the guy responsible for said horror show actually thought this far of course remains questionable.

Is this supposed to play Linkin Park in my head or is that a neuron misfire?

With the ever-increasing amount of paper cuts one gets from using their products, I wonder how long this will really go on?

After all, for most of the work people seem to be doing daily, Claude kinda isn't.. necessary? In fact, for a lot of tasks, not using it leads to better results in my experience.

There are things that only it can reasonably accomplish, but if every interaction with it hurts you in various ways (like this one), then, eventually, I do not see that working out for them anymore.

But perhaps this is just a way to push the numbers a bit further up for the IPO? That would make a lot of sense to me.