Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more k1t's commentslogin

Probably related to RFK claims.

Eg https://www.npr.org/2025/06/19/nx-s1-5405595/claims-that-see...

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others have said that seed oils are poisoning Americans. The medical community mostly rejects those claims, but they are causing problems for farmers.


They rejected me for a Covid vaccine today.

A lot of people are going to die.


  *.fbi.com


Fairly misleading title.

You can still share with other members of your household. (one other adult and up to 4 children)


Except people were previously more likely to have used this to share with people outside their home.

The effect is lots of people losing access they once had before. Whatever the technicalities of the change, it's likely going to be a major one for most people that share accounts.


Then they should stop buying it.

It's really that simple. They wont. More subscribers will come, Amazon will increase in market share and the enshitification will continue.


> Then they should stop buying it.

> It's really that simple. They wont. More subscribers will come, Amazon will increase in market share and the enshitification will continue.

It isn't that simple. Amazon was allowed to get too big, and do too much stuff. There needs to be more competition.


One hundred million dollars? My yacht cost more than that...


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNE_(artist)

BNE is an anonymous graffiti artist known for stickers that read "BNE" or "BNE was here". The artist has left their mark in countries throughout the world, including the United States, Canada, Asia, Romania, Australia, Europe, and South America. "His accent and knowledge of local artists suggest he is from New York."


CEOs are given money to make them feel important.

They are given stock awards to encourage them to improve the value of the business.

How hard they work is irrelevant.


You have misinterpreted GP's "better than what I would do" as "better than what I could do".


That would be a more plaussible explanation. Not sure if that disambiguation can be inferred from the comment though.


It’s clear from the original comment that’s what they mean. (Literally that’s what the comment says)


You are definitely not alone.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-chatbot-psychology-manic...

Irwin, a 30-year-old man on the autism spectrum who had no previous diagnoses of mental illness, had asked ChatGPT to find flaws with his amateur theory on faster-than-light travel. He became convinced he had made a stunning scientific breakthrough. When Irwin questioned the chatbot’s validation of his ideas, the bot encouraged him, telling him his theory was sound. And when Irwin showed signs of psychological distress, ChatGPT assured him he was fine.

He wasn’t.


That’s why I always use a system prompt and tell it to be critical and call me out when I’m talking bullshit. Sometimes for easier queries it’s a bit annoying when I don’t actually need a “critical part” in my answers but often it helps me stop earlier when I’m following an idea that’s not that’s not as good as I thought it would be.


Some sites (eg Google) offer child friendly versions where safe search is enforced, by accessing the site using a different set of IPs. Some DNS providers (eg Cloudflare 1.1.1.3) automatically resolve to those safe IPs when available.

The government should require sites with "unsafe" content to make "safe" versions available (eg force safe mode, readonly, no signup). Sites that are wholly inappropriate for children should self-report so they can be made unresolvable by child-safe DNS.

I'm not saying this specific implementation is the one true way, there's alternatives and ways to work around it. My real point is that the government should have forced sites to implement a consistent method of enforcing child safe mode, that can be easily set in a blanket fashion by the parent.

I'm sure whatever approach will be "too technical" for many parents at first, but once a consistent safe-mode method becomes clear, I'm sure UIs and parental controls will evolve to make it easy to enable.


By default for me (in the UK) it still seems possible to view porn in a Google image search in an incognito browser tab. I don't think non technical parents can be expected to change their DNS settings to something safe to block it. I'm a bit unclear as to what the online safety bill is solving if Google can ignore it.


I 100% agree that today expecting average parents to manage DNS is unreasonable. My point is that sites need to provide some sort of consistent way for inappropriate content to be identified, then software will evolve to make it easy for non-technical parents to apply the restrictions.


ISPs can provide dns or ip filtering by default which can be opted in or out in the account control page.

In fact I thought they did.


Just seconding a vote for Utopia (2014), and also its (better!) predecessor The Hollowmen (2008).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: