This is all a guesstimate, but my gut feel is that a considerable part of the HN population doesn't even read the linked content, only the comment section here.

I sure hope that's not true. Maybe hit the comments section first?

With github being the exception, I use comments to see if the article is AI. If it is, I prefer the condensed opinions in the comments. Not to say it can't be interesting I just don't want to waste time reading overly verbose generated text.

Depends on the content, for all of these model release marketing sites, I for example only read the comments.

If i would estimate it, I only take a look at 1/4 of the links where i read the comments.

To be honest, I'm very much surprised Amazon hasn't eaten Microsoft's lunch here. Offer out-of-the-box AWS instances with Gitlab, SLAs, backups and the works, should be straightforward.

This is the easiest sell of the century, product can discuss and implement changes without ever getting engineering involved. Or at least that's the theory, I think everyone here can think of a number of reasons to have reservations on this front.

In what? Like changing the color of the button of a website? How does that render in situ? For anything meaningful you need a preview environment

Compare the same algorithm/program in Python and C and that's roughly your answer, no?

The center tiles on a Rubik's cube don't move, they only rotate in place.

I'm sure you've never made a typo or mixed up two similar words before.

> When we look at higher-quality evidence and direct comparisons, exercise performs similarly to, but not dramatically better than, established treatments. Overhyping it risks damaging credibility in this important area of mental health.

I get where he's coming from, but at the same time, if we can achieve even roughly the same result with exercise as with medication, that's a ridiculously huge win. Side effects of antidepressants are usually uncountably many, whereas for exercise it's (just) injuries and it's pretty well understood how to prevent them. Granted depression is a thousand different diseases in a trench coat, but even if we can ameliorate some forms with exercise, that would still make it considerably more available and approachable.

Exercise doesn't need to be complex or intimidating. Starting out with going for a short walk counts as exercise. You could even do it while you have the patient with you on an appointment, go walk out and about with them. Depression is a complex beast and the more tricks we have up our sleeves to fight it, the better.

If you're depressed, trying to make exercise happen can be the hardest thing in the world for some. But for those that it isn't, it could help a lot.

The problem is that most people will reach for a pill before they will exercise, when given the choice.

I'm not sure this statement holds up to any scrutiny? Surely the number of people doing any kind of sports vastly outnumbers people on any kind of psychiatric medicine?

Not wrong in the EU, you don't need to ask for consent nor notify about cookies which are required to make the site functional. Tracking and ads don't fall under that though, which is why every site these days does need to ask for your consent.

No, you need to always ask for consent for cookies if they come from a third party, regardless if they are only required to enable functionality. You also need to ask for consent each time data leaves the website (for example when loading an image from a third party host). You can't even load a font file from a third party server because the users IP reaches that server without consent. Cookie banners don't just handle third party tracking cookies, the are needed to record consent for a huge variety of cases. "Banning tracking cookies" does not remove the need for cookie banners.

Well if the cookie comes from a third party it implicitly allows tracking.

Also AFAIK the Google Fonts question (is the IP alone already PII, if Google has no way of tying the IP to a person) has not been decided by the ECJ yet. There've only been decisions by lower level German courts that are still in dispute.

IP addresses are PII according to german law, that debate has been settled long ago by final court-rulings afaik.

"Well if the cookie comes from a third party it implicitly allows tracking."

Yes, because this makes tracking possible you have to gather consent first, regardless if tracking actually happens. Very bad solution, they could just define how data can be legally used, instead of also overreaching by defining how data can be legally transmitted.

Putting assets on a 3rd party server is indeed a great way to track people. They can completely fuck off with all of that as well.

That's the problem with the regulation: It defines how data can be legally transmitted instead of defining only how data can be legally used, resulting in nasty side-effects like making embedding third-party content illegal even if its not used for tracking.

This is actually slightly narrower exception than people (and regulators) think. The exception is:

> strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.

One very ignored qualifier here is "information society service". This is defined in Directive 2015/1535 and one of the requirements is that the service is "normally provided for remuneration". That is usually understood to mean that the service needs to be tied to provider's economic activity. This effectively excludes, for example, public authorities websites which are for their own public duties. It does however include e.g. ad supported websites.

And yes, I'm aware that many national implementations actually miss that qualifier. That can save the non-commercial private sector websites, but public authorities do not benefit from Member States failing to transpose Directive correctly.

What I hate about EU laws is they tend to word these things like this.

People act shocked when it leads to unintended side effects, but companies legal teams are just telling them they have no idea how a judge will interpret these broad wordings in regards to their business.

People say this fixes "future loopholes" but as you see with the cookie banner, it just leads to every company assuming the worst case scenario.

Going back years of conversation on cookie banners you'll see a constant argument on when they're required or not precisely because it's not defined explicitly.

So you think letting the scummy AdTech industry do whatever they want everywhere is the better "strategy"?

I mean, you can get to and from practically any airport by bike if you're determined enough.

World of difference between using cycling infrastructure and sharing roads with 2 ton beasts powered by paleo compost.

There are bicycle lanes everywhere in Holland. I don't know a single person that bikes to the airport. From Amsterdam its at least 30 minutes by bike from the city center. Actually have no idea where I would park the bike. It's not common and not practical at this point.

I've cycled to Copenhagen Airport. A friend who lives about 15 minutes away (by bike) presumably cycles there when she flies for short meetings with just a backpack.

Sure but to Schiphol (and any other airport in NL obviously) there's a proper bicycle lane.

And Schiphol has ov-fiets and bike garages.

I don't know, as far as I can tell the demo on the homepage is bugged? Or maybe I misunderstand how it's supposed to work? If I click reset after 2 seconds and then click add 1 right after it, the reset never fires. What's up with that, that's not what I expected to happen?

I guess it comes from the `tagsExhaustive` keyword. But I tried to search what it does in the documentation, and it doesn't return any hit. I then searched in the git repository and found it in some examples and CLAUDE.md but it doesn't really seem straightforward.

Perhaps it makes sense for AI agents, but as a human, I will pass.

The whole setup reminded me of the mess people would make with RxJS, and this comment chain seems to indicate it's got the same drawbacks.

Will do my best to make sure that doesn’t happen :)

Yep, it seems that if you hammer messages things get easily dropped or the async behavior is not executed.

IMO the reset should fire regardless what happens after it.

Yeah, I can see how some scenarios might want that behavior, but it sort of defeats the purpose of the demo. It wouldn't hurt to have the reset be cancelable too if you wanted to really showcase how it should work

Agreed - I hit "Reset after 2 seconds", I hit "Add 1", and sure - it adds one, but it also unexpectedly cancels the reset.

Which I don't expect from the description, and I also don't expect from the code.

---

So outside of the simple "This is broken..." feedback, I want to further pick on this example:

Don't fucking hide the imports.

Especially don't fucking hide the imports if you're showing example code, and you're doing things like

```

import { Match as M, Schema as S } from 'effect'

import { m } from 'foldkit/message'

```

Which I only know because I bothered to dig through the example playground counter (which is a different example entirely!)

It's a huge issue to show demo code where concepts magically appear, and it's just bad manners to use shorthand at the same time.

Thanks for the feedback, that’s helpful.

The code didn't look that clear to me. Like bad smell city.

Will take a look at this tonight thanks for the feedback.