I have had people show up at my house to ask if it was for rent, based on a fake post on Facebook using photos from Zillow from before my home was sold.
My realtor helped me get the photos taken down, but the Facebook ads for it are up to this day. Facebook completely ignores any and all attempts by me to report this malfeasance -- even though these ads literally have my personal home address on them!
It's a huge safety risk to me and not due to anything I did whatsoever; all I did was buy a house that was on the market and then move into it. It's a nightmare.
I would contact Facebook legal directly with documents showing the problem. Legal’s job is always to minimize liability for the company, and they have levers they can pull in any organization, no matter how “hyper scale” they claim to be.
Bonus points for figuring out the correct language to use to imply repercussions for failure to act without any actual threats. Patio11 has written about similarly worded letters with regards to debt collections and banking, and I know that there are all kinds of magic incantations in law for all kinds of transgretions.
"Patio11" itself is a magic incantion for your friendly neighborhood LLM, along with "dangerous professional". You can use these to prompt for suitable language in the email, as well as other courses of action.
I'm not sure I get the huge safety risk. You buy a property and you're in a public registry. There's no anonymity at that point in the US other than setting up trusts or other ownership screens.
Facebook admits around 10% of their ads are fraudulent. I think it's much higher.
The scam is even larger than you see and exploits missing children reports. There are huge automated scam networks that post missing children reports then get people to share them. Then once the post/ad gets traction they change it to a listing of a house that is auto pulled from public information. They then use that to scam people.
A leaked Facebook document showed they know which ads are fraudulent because the ad system is programmed to never show those ads to the ad regulators, and it's most of the ads.
To scam people out of some made up fee. Application fee, filing fee, holding fee, reservation fee., whatever BS they can get someone to send them a few bucks for since it's all free money to them.
how much of your time do these visits take up, can you document it and then sue Facebook in small claims court for your time and effort? This seems a stretch but maybe it could be made to work, it could be amusing if so.
XFCE and LXDE are saviors for old machines. I frequently install Xubuntu and Lubuntu on old Chromebooks (e. g. HP Chromebook 14 from around 10 years ago, 2GB RAM, Celeron processor), and you can quickly get a fully functional, usable system. I'm not writing code on them, but you can easily use them for all the things the average person needs on a daily basis from their computer.
It's great that these projects have not given into "the times" or tried to become things they're not. They're great at what they do and I hope they remain that way.
For what it's worth, this is essentially the policy my current and most recent previous workplace followed. (My employers before that were pre-LLMs.)
If you are the one with your name on the PR, it's your code and you have to understand it. If you don't understand it at least well enough to speak intelligently about it, you aren't ready to submit it for review. If you ask Copilot, Cursor, or whatever to generate a PR for you, it still must be reviewed and approved by you and another engineer who acts as your reviewer.
I haven't heard a lot of pushback on this; it feels like common sense to me. It's effectively the same rules we'd use if somebody who wasn't an engineer wanted to submit code; they'd need to go through an engineer to do it.
LLM usage has increased our throughput and the quality of our code thus far, but without these rules (and people following the spirit of them, being bought in to their importance), I really don't think it would.
I encourage you to raise this policy with your management, if you think you can get them to listen, and demonstrate how it might help. I would be very frustrated if my colleagues were submitting AI-generated code without thinking it through.
Thank you for finding this, really helpful. I checked PACER and didn't realize it was filed in state court instead.
The complaint is speaking and it is aggressively written and, to my non-lawyer mind, pretty well drafted. If I were Mongo, I would be trying aggressively to settle this and make it go away.
If I were the parents, I would be trying very hard to force any other outcome, preferably one where Mongo pays the biggest public relations price possible for what they've done, assuming the allegations are true.
The way Mongo answers the complaint will be really instructive in figuring out how they intend to play this, and in whether they think there is some explanation that will make this seem less dire.
(For anyone looking now, the case has been removed to federal court for the moment. Caption "Surman, by and through the Administrators of her Estate, Gregory Surman and Karen Connolly et al v. MONGODB, INC.", 2026cv00166 in SDNY.)
Unfortunately, it’s not as strong a case as you’d think. One of three cases has to be true: either she was disabled and unable to work, disabled but able to fulfill job duties, or not disabled at all.
In the first case Mongo can likely fire her once FMLA is up (notice that the termination is 12 weeks after she started leave). Disabilities aren’t protected if they leave you unable to perform job duties, which is what Mongo will claim. Notice how the complaint tries to say additional leave is “reasonable accommodation”. Mongo will claim not working at all means you’re not fulfilling job duties and that she used up her FMLA.
In theory if you become unable to do your job due to disability you should get disability insurance, which is mandatory in NY, but it sounds like Prudential rejected the claim, hence the letter from the doctor there.
In the latter two cases, then Mongo will claim that she could come back to work and asking her to was not violating any ADA laws, and that they would have been willing to make e.g. scheduling accommodations for any treatments and so on to accommodate a disability that doesn’t prevent her from fulfilling core job duties.
I support this, but I am not sure if it can be done via executive order? (Not that that has stopped any recent president from doing whatever they like via EO.)
There is a weird assumption people make that somebody as successful as Charli XCX isn't smart because her persona is "I like cocaine and partying," and then are surprised when she can express herself like this. Like she says: "Another thing about being a pop star is that you cannot avoid the fact that some people are simply determined to prove that you are stupid."
Making music at any professional level is extremely hard work. Touring and dancing and hosting shows is even harder. It requires a substantial intellectual capacity and stamina to achieve. You either have these things yourself, or you are propped up entirely by others who have them and are invested in you for money's sake. Given Charli XCX's background, it's not actually surprising that she, in fact, has all the talent, skill, and intellect required to do this stuff herself.
Editing to add: Another place to look to learn that people with this skillset often have very very deep inner lives is Dua Lipa's book club podcast (https://www.service95.com/tag/book-club). As someone who used to run these kinds of in-depth interviews, I can say, she is damn good at it.
What you're saying is a very common "poptimist" trope of the last decade or two. To say that, actually, these vocalists are highly intelligent and largely responsible for their own success.
Charli XCX, like nearly all popstars, was propped up by the producers and writers who shaped her sound and composed large parts of the music. Producers have been there the whole way. In particular, her blowing up was highly influenced by the stylistic direction, composition, production and sound engineering of people associated with the PC Music record label. The statement that she had good enough taste to have been around these people is rather unfair -- she was around artistic innovators like Sophie, yes, but THEY are the ones that pioneered the sound.
The most common refrain is that popstars often write their music. This is misleading: they write the lyrics, suggest a general vibe, and some rough melodies or chords. And even this is a stretch many times. They are not composing or producing the music in any larger sense, and this is the pivotal part of actually making music.
One famous exception that comes to mind is Grimes, who largely actually /makes/ her own music. She rarely seems to get credit for this.
This is not to say that vocalist popstars don't bring a lot to the table. They do. But what they bring to the table is incredible performance skill and charisma. I think poptimism has gone too far, to the point that we think the product was responsible for creating itself.
> In particular, her blowing up was highly influenced by the stylistic direction, composition, production and sound engineering of people associated with the PC Music record label.
No, if anything Charli XCX was the one that put PC Music on the map. She has been a fairly big name since 2012
> she was around artistic innovators like Sophie, yes, but THEY are the ones that pioneered the sound.
Sophie didn’t pioneer the sound of PC Music any more than e.g. AG Cook, QT, Hannah Diamond, Danny L Harle, 100 gecs, or any of the other many artists involved, including Charli XCX
You’re talking as if PC Music is some huge label with a lot of help, when it’s mostly just AG Cook. He and Charli XCX collaborated on tracks for a couple of Charli’s albums
Charli XCX was around before PC Music, but the sound she is known for and became famous for originated from PC Music. The fact that she delivered a bit of "minor popstar" cred to them is fine, but the key to my point is that they determined the sound that made her iconic.
Sophie was an example. I didn't see it necessary to talk about all the artists involved in PC Music to make the point that the producers on the label pioneered the sound.
Look at the credits for her albums. She had producers and writers credited on every single song. This IS a lot of help. You're acting like she just did a couple of collabs with AG Cook and that's it. She had many different people helping her on the actual composition and production of every single song.
This is the point being refuted -- that the popstars are geniuses responsible for carrying the burden of their rise. It's mythology. The reality is that they bring performance skills and charisma to the table, some non-awful lyrical skill, and then the lion's share of actually making the music work is done by producers and writers. They would be nowhere without the producers. The producers would be nowhere without the popstars. But it's the most common poptimist mistake to confuse the popstar's charisma for the producer's mastery.
Your point is clear, but Charli does a lot of production on her albums, so I'm not sure she's the one to make this point about. She's not a once in a lifetime producing genius like Sophie, but she doesn't claim to be. Yung Lean did not produce the sound that made him famous either.
I think in the modern day, due to Internet, access to DAWs, etc, a lot of pop stars actually do/did much more of their own writing and production, see Billie & Finneas or Chappel Roan. It's just much more accessible, there's lots of pretty faces on social media so to really break out, you either need some real connections or real chops.
> The most common refrain is that popstars often write their music. This is misleading: they write the lyrics, suggest a general vibe, and some rough melodies or chords. And even this is a stretch many times. They are not composing or producing the music in any larger sense, and this is the pivotal part of actually making music.
To be fair, if they write the lyrics, define the vibe/feel of the song, and compose the melody and chord progression, then that does sound like the vast majority of the song. What's left - I guess some additional instrumentation, the percussion, production? To me it does sound fair to credit the popstar with having composed the music in this case.
The operative word was "rough". They give a few hints; they're not painstakingly mapping out the melodies and chords for every instrument and determining what those instruments are, and how they sound.
If you're writing for a guitar and voice, then you've basically got a song, but pop music is built on sometimes hundreds of different instruments and effects.
That seems like quite a high bar, to the extent that I'm not sure we could ever credit anyone with creating a pop song if it applies. Everyone seems comfortable crediting Lennon and McCartney with their various Beatles songs, for example, but were they doing all the things you describe? Did they do more to create those songs than, say, Taylor Swift does for hers? It's not obvious to me that it's the case.
Yes, they did. George Martin was an arranger, not a co-writer. Max Martin is a co-writer.
If you gave Lennon and McCartney a couple of guitars, a few days of studio time, a good mood, and no other help you'd probably get a hit. Or at least an interesting song.
If you gave Taylor Swift the same you'd get a demo, maybe. You might get an unassisted hit, but the odds are much lower.
Charli XCX - even more so. Give her a laptop and microphone and some plugins and no producer, and I doubt you'd get much.
Not to say that what she and Dua Lipa do is easy. But they're fundamentally performers and brands for a music production operation.
Creative agency isn't a binary. It's on a spectrum. Some people have very little. Some have a lot. Some have taste that defines the product, even though they're mostly curating other people's work.
Michael Jackson was notorious for this. He was a phenomenal dancer, an ok vocalist, not much of a practical musician. But he had a strong sense of what he wanted, and he had a theatricality that pulled the whole thing together.
Charli XCX is a version of that. I don't think her appeal is as strong or as universal, and I doubt she has as much agency as Jackson did. But it's the same idea - shape, curate, perform.
Yes, it's absolutely the case for Lennon and McCartney, since they didn't give rough ideas to George Martin to fill in; they specifically wrote the exact melodies for half the instruments involved and exactly how to play them.
You could argue that Harrison and Starr always deserved some of the writing credit, since they often determined their parts, and I wouldn't actually disagree with that -- though Lennon and McCartney were kinda control freaks, so I'm not sure how much leeway was actually given. When they started bringing in extra instruments, again, there is arguably some extra credit to be given to Martin and others, but Lennon and McCartney were still strongly directing what was to be played.
For what it's worth -- and this is going to get me hated even more than my popstar-skepticism -- I don't really like the Beatles that much. But it's transparent that they did more than Taylor Swift because they were specifically and precisely writing the melodies for the instruments being played.
Charli XCX is diverse and experimental enough that my first instinct would be to assume she’s rather intelligent. For example, her collaboration in the PC Music scene comes off rather nerdy and eccentric actually, not exactly pop. And her lyrics usually have more to it than meets the ear, e.g. sometimes intentionally being a commentary on the party persona keeping her distracted from worse things. “I hate the silence (uh oh), that's why the music's always loud”
Of course, that isn’t a shallow opinion so perhaps someone unfamiliar to her would think otherwise
Does she write her own lyrics? Or does someone else write those for her?
I’m not saying she is or isn’t intelligent, and either way she clearly is talented in some area of music, just wondering if she is a singer or singer/songwriter :)
> There is a weird assumption people make that somebody as successful as Charli XCX isn't smart because her persona is "I like cocaine and partying," and then are surprised when she can express herself like this.
after all, it takes a smart guy to play dumb. artists do portray a persona, or are encouraged by labels. at the same time we cannot blame others for buying it or making their own assumptions.
from first look about the book club podcast, it seems great that one reads a book and gets to talk directly with its author.
> There is a weird assumption people make that somebody as successful as Charli XCX isn't smart because her persona is "I like cocaine and partying,"
Considering cocaine is both illegal and has an obviously unethical supply chain, you'd think someone would try, you know, prosecuting her or something.
If she's prosecuted before a long queue of others, we'd be entitled to suggest the law is not being applied equally. Start a little higher up the food chain with the politicians.
In a lot of places drug enforcement is being deprioritized, for good reason. Of course then you run into all the problems with only enforcing against people someone doesn't like.
Well, depending on your ethnicity of course. In Singapore I was just told off for a small bag with maybe a gram of weed left in my pocket after flying in from Amsterdam, they did not seem particularly interested in the situation but stressed that it should never happen again.
I’d be shocked if the airport experience at Bali was really different, although they would probably want a bribe from you.
I wonder if I'm missing some sarcasm, but I feel I need to clarify that "I like cocaine and partying" is her _persona_, it isn't necessarily true. It's largely marketing. I feel this was the main point of the article, lol.
Now all we need to do is run your OS on a redstone virtual machine inside of Minecraft, then run Minecraft on it. That way you'll have Minecraft inside your Minecraft.
This is a genuinely great use of LLMs/related technology. Dynamic characters you can have conversations with to make game choices more informed is a really cool idea, actually feels original and clever. I really enjoyed playing it.
Poe’s law applies too much these days. I’ve tried to get out of the habit of leaving jokes ambiguous like that because it’s just too easy to trip readers up, especially when not everyone has native level awareness of idioms or social context.
Part of the problem is also frankly that HN has a culture that encourages serious engagement (or at least a facsimile of it) with the worst opinions it's possible to have. You just can't keep your sense for sincerity finely honed in an environment like that.
And reddit exist for the sake of smug echo-chamber dwellers. Or bots.
A lot of the posts listed there are:
* obvious joke/sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek etc
* taken out of context, or editorialised to similar effect (e.g. missing nuance that often exists in the same thread)
* based on the disbelief or disapproval of equally unqualified reddit-bros
* flagged/dead or heavily downvoted, the opposite of being 'encouraged'
In other words, a lot of low effort 'gotcha' point scoring against alleged 'tech-bros' which may or ma not mean everyone in HN is a SV start-up pitcher, or that no one really know what a tech-bro is.
If you think this is possibly true, I think we are far apart the discussion wouldn't go anywhere. Not a judgement, just trying to be better about my online engagement style.
My perception is a 'tech-bro' is someone in a tech hub (i.e. SV) with access to large amounts of capital (e.g. VC funding), likely involved in start-ups, or with some sway in tech companies (the prototype is often Elon Musk, et al); and their tendency to treat technology as a cure-all, especially in naïve or overoptimistic way, overestimating their own grasp of technology, or applications of technology, to various pursuits. There might also be a machoistic 'frat' element to it as well. A large group within HN perhaps, but probably not a majority of HN-ers.
This definition is not a million miles away from the sentiment of 'I could build that in a weekend' from the dev-side, or 'I just had a great idea (a clone of something well know etc) - you implement it, I'll be compensated equally as the "ideas guy"' from the biz-end.
In contrast, I think some (per r/SHNS) believe a 'tech-bro' is any man with a background in tech (usually software, maybe hardware), and hence most (the majority of) of the male population (still significant majority..) of HN.
By this definition, we aren't a million miles away from the gendered insult/accusation of 'mansplaining', which is basically arrogance, but when a man does it (or specifically, in respect to a woman), with the implication of them misogynistically underestimating women; Not clear if there is an implication that they otherwise treat other men differently - most anecdotes cover the former case without establishing a baseline of behaviour/arrogance.
What I'm saying is, as the term is weaponised, there is a scope-creep in direction of greatest utility / weaponised potential - It's inconvenient to establish someone is actually involved in the tech industry, SV-culture or tech-start-up-mentality, such as to critique those things in any relevant or substantial way, so instead any rando is a 'tech-bro' purely because they post on HN, i.e. HN-er == tech-bro, and it just become bashing men in tech; From my perspective 'man involved in technology', generalised across all tech-scene and cultures, isn't a meaningful or relevant distinction or discussion.
Maybe where we disagree is the idea of it being a binary thing. I see it as a . . . oh, let's call it a "spectrum" just because, where the top end is Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, people have made their wealth (well maybe not Elon) on the Internet and have used those gains to make the world actively worse and to try to pervert politics in a way one person should not have leverage to do. On the other end of the continuum would be every person who posts here in threads on unions saying they would never join a programmer's union because it would cost them money. The average people who see themselves as 10x, not realizing if they were all 10x, nobody would be. In between are the LinkedInLunatic grindset CEOs of a 2 person company constantly posting about how they work 167 hours a day and then the guy who has an enormous amount of k8 orchestration and multi-region failover for his company's static website that gets 100 hits in a good month.
Do you consider my post to be condescending or patronizing?
Also, it appears that tclancy is also male, so I don't think it qualifies on that count either.
As for the accusation of sea-lioning, assuming this definition:
"..a form of online harassment where someone persistently and politely pesters
a person with a relentless stream of questions and requests for evidence, all
while feigning sincerity and ignorance"
I'd have to say that I'd debated whether to reply or to be even a little bit serious in my reply because I don't think you are-- well, it's not that I think it's "not in good faith", it's that I think you have some blinders on that are comfortable. Given you have argued that both "mansplaining" and "tech bro" are false constructs, it feels an awful lot like you are one of those Oppressed Men we hear so much about. Much, much more than I care to hear about.
I can't possibly defend myself against unsubstantiated, unflattering speculations about me or my perspective - such as that I have comfortable blinders on; or that I 'sound like' some such negative stereotype of a person that you dislike. I do feel you are being honest in what you are saying, but I also think it's not particularly charitable or fair PoV.
Man, it's so understandable. Especially when 35-40% the country is doing exactly that kind of bullshit equivocative defense. Frankly I'm shocked the shitheads usually here read the room and have kept the child-rape apologia to themselves.
There is such a long history of using humor to affect change and discuss extremely serious matters. Legally it's protected speech because of it's importance.
The main purpose of sarcasm is not humor, it's to use irony as a form of contempt. To the extent that humor is involved it's usually done so as a form of mockery.
I agree that satire and parody have a valuable place in discourse.
But I believe there are some subject matters including sexual assault and more specifically pedophilia that are pretty much never in good taste or useful to parody. Apparently this position is somewhat outspoken here.
Swift's Modest Proposal mentions eating babies which is very obviously an extreme behavior that is not tolerated by anyone anywhere, which is a distinct contrast to sexual assault which has victims in the millions if not billions.
Also just to note that the comment I replied to is now dead and flagged, so I guess I'm not the only one with these opinions.
My realtor helped me get the photos taken down, but the Facebook ads for it are up to this day. Facebook completely ignores any and all attempts by me to report this malfeasance -- even though these ads literally have my personal home address on them!
It's a huge safety risk to me and not due to anything I did whatsoever; all I did was buy a house that was on the market and then move into it. It's a nightmare.
reply