Everyone has mentioned this is ethically bankrupt, and I totally agree.
Very little mention of the fact that this project is extremely ho hum from a technical perspective and in terms of creativity.
This is maybe 2 steps up from a Hello World example app. It could have mostly been generated by Rails scaffolding script 15 years ago, not even mentioning AI could crap this out in 20 minutes. Most frameworks have build-a-twitter-clone docs that are actually more complex than this.
And the idea of people having profiles with the ability to comment on them is pretty much feature zero on every social media app ever. I remember thinking this was cutting edge stuff 20 years ago on Xanga.
Cool toy project I guess (morals aside) but not quite the proof of 200 IQ this guy seems to think it is.
>... I do think my design choice were directly responsible for how viral this was, which is something really cool.
You've literally admitted to forcefully signing up everyone at your university, and then telling them that you'd done that for them. How can you not see that whatever "virality" you think you had is because of that choice, and not your "design choice"? Are you seriously this daft?
The reason you don't see it is because it is a massive privacy violation, and also it was move for move done in the plot of the movie Social Network about young Zuck, not exactly a novel idea.
This was what Facebook and many other sites did, over a decade ago, so it isn't innovative. It was also wrong for you to do, and as The Social Network illustrates, wrong of Zuckerberg to do, too.
So, I don't know that you'll receive many accolades. Especially since you admitted you were posting rumors about those people, to draw them to your site. Bad.
> all the discussion on that person happens on their page
This pretty much describes every social media site out there.
That math does not match my math with my kids. Does that factor in the price of water and electricity and detergent? And are you comparing to store brand diapers or the luxury name brand ones? The price difference is literally 5x for some sizes.
I did the math meticulously when I had my first kid years ago, comparing store brand diapers vs cloth. Once you factor in the up front cost of the cloth diapers plus the cost of water and energy and detergent running the wash, the costs are virtually identical. The math looks better for cloth if you use them for years or multiple kids, but that's not super hygienic.
That's not even factoring in time and convenience.
I am convinced cloth diapers are some kind of performative environmentalialsm or performative motherhood akin to the trad wife phenomenon.
Did you calculate based on buying cloth nappies second hand and then reselling them? That was a great alternative for my family. Worked out to something like $100 in total nappy costs for one child, including the opportunity cost of tying up the capital up front. That's less than $1 per week. Make it $1.5 if we include electricity and water costs of laundry, compounded over that period.
I would struggle to find single-use nappies for $1.5 per week in my area.
I guess if you buy them used the math changes. Second hand diapers was a line in the sand for my wife.
But these people talking about diaper washing services, at that point, surely what is the point? I guess the thought of diapers in a landfill keeps some folks up at night.
What do you find confusing about the idea of a diaper service? It seems too unsanitary for you? The idea that it might cost slightly more than disposable diapers is intolerable to you?
Do you have any reason to believe washing diapers actually is unsanitary?
The price tag and environmental impact of constant diaper delivery seems off the cuff like it would negate the original benefit of cloth diapers. Admittedly I have not done math on this one.
With the service we used, they picked up and dropped off diapers once per week using a big truck. They also drove around to do the same for many other people at the same time. You can't call this diaper delivery "constant". And if the emissions from this are significant, you could always use an electric van.
How are you feeling: do you still think this is something only for performative environmentalists or "trad wives"? Neither of these descriptions apply in even the remotest sense to my wife or I.
You're willing to wash and re-use for one kid but not then to let the next one re-use? So does that mean the wash doesn't get the diaper clean? And if that's true, why re-use them at all for anyone?
It's more about the accumulation of fecal matter over time. I don't feel convinced that a washer removes it all, hence staining. And I don't feel great about making my kid sit in another kid's shit.
There are many decisions young parents make that from the remove of a keyboard in a happily single or child-free relationship seem irrational or (mon dieu!) _inefficient_, but there is a emotional depth to these choices that are _very_ meaningful to the people involved.
As a fun thought experiment, when people complain about LLMs, I substitute the word "human" or "employee" into the sentence and see if it is equally true.
"You can never really trust an LLM!" -> "You can never really trust an employee!" (Every IT department ever.)
"LLMs make shit up." -> "Humans make shit up." (Wow very profound insight.)
While that will always be true, LLMs do it a lot more often and do so with confidence and poise. We have evolved ways to tell if someone is making shit up (which usually works); LLMs subvert this. We are also being sold the idea that these LLMs are some kind of super intelligence which isn't helping matters.
Maybe the real maker economy will be the future underclass building makeshift infrastructure to support a subsistence lifestyle in small post capital communities off the grid once big capital no longer feels the need to maintain a consumer economy at any scale.
I don't know what the future holds, but owning a few acres in rural nowhere and knowing how to build stuff gives me a sense of security.
Someone needs to find a way to turn dirt into a 3d printing material.
This is like travel agents crying that websites like TripAdvisor destroyed tourism. Not exactly an impartial party, so it's hard to take them seriously even if the point makes sense.
"I used to keep this gate, and now it's all ruined!"
"Paying a guy from the Philippines to write your code and submit it under your name is just another tool no different than using an IDE!"
Surely we agree that some boundary exists where it becomes absurd right? We are just quibbling over where to draw the line. I personally draw it at AI.
Very little mention of the fact that this project is extremely ho hum from a technical perspective and in terms of creativity.
This is maybe 2 steps up from a Hello World example app. It could have mostly been generated by Rails scaffolding script 15 years ago, not even mentioning AI could crap this out in 20 minutes. Most frameworks have build-a-twitter-clone docs that are actually more complex than this.
And the idea of people having profiles with the ability to comment on them is pretty much feature zero on every social media app ever. I remember thinking this was cutting edge stuff 20 years ago on Xanga.
Cool toy project I guess (morals aside) but not quite the proof of 200 IQ this guy seems to think it is.