Do you have children? Because I've never heard a parent think that way

I think it's a little brash, but I do think that if we could accurately measure "care" that people with 1 child care statistically slightly more for them than those with 5 might care about any individual one. Not that they don't care, but that the one with 1 would worry more. Like how families with 1 daughter and multiple boys might dot on the only daughter a bit more.

I mean historically this is exactly how it worked. When infant mortality was 25-50%, people often had 10 children or so. Maybe 5 would make it to be adults, but people back then didn't view death like we view it now. Sure, they mourned, but losing a child was not a "stop the world" event, because you could expect to lose many. So, it couldn't be.

That was a little over 100 years go. So, a long time, but not that long.

This is exactly what I was wondering, thank you! They kept saying 11 states already have this, but I couldn't figure out which 11.

> I wanted the information and I have no way of getting at it without investing my own time and effort in going to your website.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I think that's a big reason why people want to ban bots.

The social contract of accepting scraping for visibility was always tenuous and is now fully dead. But it’s shocking the number of people who are essentially victim blaming here. You should spend YOUR time to optimize your free website so MY use case is not impacted. How is that not incredibly selfish on its face?

The social contract for putting a website on the public internet involves following standards and making your website accessible. You SHOULD make sure that your website is readable to people no matter what user agent they are using as long as it's standards compliant.

For example, making a website that only works in Edge and refuses to load for anything else would be a shitty practice. You are free to do it. There's no one stopping you, but you should expect people to bitch about it and they might think you're kind of a jerk or maybe just bad at making websites. It's the same thing when a site actively rejects traffic from curl, wget, or any other common utility that many people find useful.

The social contract for putting a website on the public internet was built on the assumption that browsers would be used to access those websites, and that most browsers would generally behave in a similar way (click on page, display page, pretty simple).

LLMs are not browsers, nor are they people, so I don't see why they should be part of this equation at all. They do not display the page for a real person to read, they merely ingest its contents and then spit out something completely different.

It's probably a pretty common misconception that websites should have total control over how their content is viewed, but it's strange to see that on a website like this. Part of the reason apps are so popular with companies is that it gives them control over how content is presented which is something webpages were never intended to give them.

The entire internet was built on advertising money. That's why any of this even exists.

The internet existed and thrived long before the advertisers infested it. The internet was different, but in many ways better. It was still useful and amazing. That was why they came. It would be still be useful and amazing if every advertiser on Earth disappeared tomorrow and took their ads with them.

> The social contract for putting a website on the public internet was built on the assumption that browsers would be used to access those websites, and that most browsers would generally behave in a similar way (click on page, display page, pretty simple).

No, not browsers, user agents (some of which would be browsers) and there was never an assumption of how a website would behave on the user's end, that's the job the user agent. All that HTML and CSS are only suggestions, but the power was always intended to be left to the user to decide if/how they wanted that data presented to them and it was always intended that the user be able to choose whatever tools they wanted to collect, process, and display content pulled down from the internet. That same principle is how we have ad-blockers. You are free to infest your website with ads, but as the person requesting the website I'm under zero obligation to display any part of that site I don't want.

> LLMs are not browsers, nor are they people, so I don't see why they should be part of this equation at all.

LLMs are just another tool used by people to collect and process the information available on websites. Maybe there is a distinction to be made between people using LLMs to get web content and corporations scraping websites to take training data, but even scraping has always been a common and expected practice. It's the current scale that is making things different.

Funny how your idea of a social contract only cares about obligations for one side.

...because they want to make it harder for people to get the information they need?

I think I must be missing something here.

Those are all the things that replace broadcast TV

They replace it for delivery. That's not what this is about. The change discussed here is about content creation. That content is already delivered through multiple channels.

Well, cell phones and home Internet theoretically also replace cable and satellite TV but that’s not really what you see in real life.

My 70 year old grandpa just cancelled his satellite TV in favor of streaming :)

I think this is trying to do something similar to exe.dev, but not doing it as well

I am an exe customer and happy with the product, but this has support for sockets and grpc. This is a slightly more capable product for various use cases.

But secrets are a kind of configuration, right? I agree they should be kept separate from non-secret config; ideally non-secret configuration can be committed to your codebase somewhere depending on the environment it's running in.

Hm, I haven't seen these issues personally. We only have one `.env` file and it's just for local secrets. Configuration emphatically does not go in `.env` and ideally is in docker compose and defined in code (we use Pydantic Settings).

Yeah, this is the way. I assumed that was fairly standard at this point.

No it isn't.

Your local .env should NOT be shared, but should also be assumed to be leaked at any given time. Security should be done using a secrets manager through the cloud platform that's being used, e.g. AWS'secrets manager (or ssm param store too i guess)

Pasting it into chatgpt should not be a problem.

It also doesn't belong in git repos, but a much bigger issue is what process led to it. It's pretty standard to ignore it in a .gitignore, I'd be very surprised if modern agents made that mistake. And even if they did, agents should call tools that scaffold deterministically so that this isn't a problem.

I genuinely don't even know what we're talking about anymore, .env files are just values (it even says so in the article). People are making it way more complicated than it needs to be for no discernable reason other than an insane amount of laziness.

A related article on NITBYism and the built environment, but from the perspective of modern finance and how financial instruments may increase the amount of ugly buildings.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/you-probably-own...

The article required a subscription. And archives did not have it.

Nothing turns me off wanting to hear somebody's opinion more than using the dumbass made-up word ‘stroad’. There is no stronger signal that the author has no actual original opinion on the subject and is just parroting what they've read online and internalized as The Opinion Good People Have. Luckily it was above the paywall fold.

The idea of paying to read someone's opinion piece is also approximately the most pretentious thing possible. Presumably they want to convince me to care about whatever they have to say and effect some change. The idea of the reader paying for their blog post is absurd.

Should writers not be paid for their work? Or should we have a society where only people who chose to get born to rich parents get to have an opinion?

Publishing your opinion is free. Anyone can do it. On the other hand, my prior is already going to be that their pet topic is not important to me, and if they're charging money to tell me about it, I can only conclude it's not important to them either.

How would you describe the us way to destroy everything other than car traffic? It is not a street anymore. Can you describe it in an identifiable way.

I disagree with the premise. Anything that lets people exercise their freedom of movement is a good thing.

I mean, all words were made up once! Yeah stroad is a relatively recent one.

I think Americans get that other countries have different laws. But freedom of speech, an ideal we lifted from European enlightenment thinkers, is so important to our culture and national mythos that it is a little surprising how differently it's valued in much of Europe.

I'm sure the culture shock goes both ways though, as you say. Curious about your perspective on the the most bizarre / arbitrary things in the US?

There's so many but I'll give you an easy one: usury is legal in the US.

Another easy one: the US has legalized political bribery to a degree that would (and has) landed many European politicians in prison for years.

I hate passkeys so much. They're so confusingly implemented.