It's because the author is comparing that incident to how they were prepared with the bulk of their analysis in advance. Ready to publish as soon as it happened.
The downvotes are because the discussion isn't really about "which option do users prefer". It's actually about returning user choice. As the original comment said: "If I want a separate tab, I can Cmd+click and Browsers don't have the reverse option for opening in the same window."
So when you say "Nope!", you're being downvoted because you're implicitly saying "actually users don't deserve choice".
This is one of a bunch of issues that have been popping up since a vibe coder took over the bulk of development on this project. There's a (probably also AI generated) list of a big portion of the issues here: https://github.com/benbjohnson/litestream/issues/1221. That proposal has been open for a few months, and it seems (from my POV) unlikely to be resolved any time soon.
I've been following litestream for a while, and it seems like the project has been hijacked by a vibe coder. I wouldn't trust it for critical tasks anymore.
Personally, as a DM of casual games with friends, 90% of the fun for me is the act of communal storytelling. That fun is that both me and my players come to the table with their own ideas for their character and the world, and we all flesh out the story at the table.
If I found out a player had come to the table with an LLM generated character, I would feel a pretty big betrayal of trust. It doesn't matter to me how "good" or "polished" their ideas are, what matters is that they are their own.
Similarly, I would be betraying my players by using an LLM to generate content for our shared game. I'm not just an officiant of rules, I'm participating in shared storytelling.
I'm sure there are people who play DnD for reasons other than storytelling, and I'm totally fine with that. But for storytelling in particular, I think LLM content is a terrible idea.
Really cool project. A quick note, I had to dig in your FAQ to find your definition for LOQ:
> "What does 'LOQ' mean in your results?
>
> Limit of Quantification (LOQ) is the lowest concentration we can reliably measure. Results below LOQ are marked "<LOQ" - this doesn't mean zero, just below our measurement threshold."
IMO this definition should be on every results page, since most of the pages have more LOQs than anything else.
Viewport size and deciding where to paginate makes a naive approach to this surprisingly difficult. That being said, if you can control the css / html, you can often solve these problems with a short media query and some hints at where to break pages (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/break-after).
It seems like before you think about monetization, you should think about how you can generate the amount of traffic you had in February repeatably. February had 6k visitors, but March had 350, and August had only 240. It's going to be pretty hard to generate any revenue from a website that links to free books with only 8 visitors per day.
I don't want to be mean, but this post has exactly the problem the person you're replying to was complaining about. The person you're replying to, I think, would like an explanation that reads more like "It's like Twitter, but not tied to a mega-corp, just for you and your pals". I don't know if that description actually fits Nostr though because, like the person you're replying to, I have a pretty hard time understanding what Nostr actually _is_.
> Another way to look at this is you’re outsourcing your understanding to something that ultimately doesn’t think.
You read this quote wrong. Senior devs outsource _work_ to junior engineers, not _understanding_. The way they became senior in the first place is by not outsourcing work so they could develop their understanding.
The irony is that a valid reason for in-house developers to not want to use an external product is concern about the long term support availabilty for that external project. You could make a case that this product shutting down is proof the in-house developers were right not to trust it.
I don't think that's totally fair in this case, since it seems they open sourced their software. But also, in general, I think NIH syndrom gets a bad rap. Sometimes a "worse" solution you control really is more reasonable compared to a technically superior solution made by an external company.
Agree! I bought my kindle in 2016 and have read hundreds of books on it. The cost per book at this point is in the pennies. It's not like you have to buy a new device every book, or even every few years.
Also I was very confused by the assertion that ebooks are a niche market. By the authors math more than 20% of people in the UK use e-readers to read on a regular basis. That seems like a very healthy market to me!
The problem is that I'm not requesting Mozilla do anything. Firefox isn't a "service" it's a web browser. When I input a seach query, _I_ am acting on my behalf, not Mozilla.
I don't want any language where they get to insert themselves into that chain of behavior. Curl doesn't need a TOS, why does Firefox?
I think Goodhart's law only applies if you have fixed, published criteria for funding. That's why I mentioned transparency explicitly. I wonder if you could avoid some of the worst of Goodhart's law by saying something like "the formula changes every year, and we will publish it only after 5 years, but the goal is to reward value provided, and de-risk the ecosystem". The idea being you're explicitly trying to incentivize broadly valuable work rather than specific metrics.
It's a bit like the SEO dance. Publishing the exact formula makes it much easier to game SEO, so instead search engines say stuff like "we're trying to gauge the overall quality of the site, we use metrics like [...] but not exclusively, focus on making good, responsive, accessible content above all else". Obviously it doesn't work perfectly and the more money there is, the more incentive to game the system, but it seems better than the alternative of publishing the exact ranking algorithm.