I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't really want to see someone else's stylistic "warts".

I just want clean, easy-to-read content and I don't care about the person who wrote it. A tool like Grammarly is the difference between readable and unreadable (or understandable and understandable) for many people.

You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

You could even write a plugin for your favorite web browser to do that to every site you visit.

It seems hard to achieve the inverse that is (would you rather I use i.e.?) rewrite this paragraph as the original author did before they had an AI re--write it to make it clean, (--do you like oxford commas, and em/en dashes! Just prompt your AI) and easier to read

> You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

For those coming from a language other than English, you are more likely to lose information by using a tool to “reconstruct” meaning from poorly phrased English as an input, as opposed to the poster using a tool to generate meaningful English from their (presumably) well-written native language.

> You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

But that creates a private version of the text which the original poster didn't sign off on. You could have fixed something contrary to their intent.

There's a big difference between me running a filter on other people's words, and those people themselves choosing to run one and then approving the results.

I personally don't see a problem with someone using a grammar checker as long as they aren't just blindly accepting its suggestions. That said, if someone actually is using it in that way, it shouldn't be detectable anyway, so it probably doesn't matter all that much whether or not it's included in the letter of the rule.

> When I worked at Microsoft, it cost over $20 to have a human customer support agent pick up the phone when someone called in for help. That was greater than our product margin. Every time someone called for help, we basically lost the entire profit on that sale, and then some.

This doesn't seem like a bad thing when it comes to aligning incentives (assuming customers actually want a product they don't need help to use).

How is it failed? Just compared to, like, the prevalence of HTML?

I've worked in web dev for almost 20 years. Almost every year has had some kind of work with XML.

Client side? i think not. 25 years ago we were told web sites were going to make their data available in nice machine readable XML form which would be transformed by xslt etc into presentation form and available for machine use without the presentation form. Same promise as semantic HTML but earlier, and same promise as webmcp now.

We are using HTML and not XHTML. I have not used XML on websites in over 15 years when HTML5 got stable.

> Readers added context they thought people might want to know

>

> Bitwarden volunteered for this research and already fixed the vulnerabilities a year ago

No insider info but this seems like two teams combined and one of their (redundant) products got shuttered. Not a typical "shutdown" announcement for a service since it was (AFAIK) just a different interface for the same underlying feature, accessible elsewhere.

Hard to find the signal in the noise and know what stories I should even read to get a sense of baseline quality; partially because that's just a hard problem inherent to floods of any content, but also because the recommendation system seems to lack enough data (and also might be weighting the wrong things, e.g. the rank #1 story is also the lowest-rated...).

A very cool idea in theory and something very hard to pull off, but I think in order to get the data you need on how readable each story is you'll need to work on presentation and recommendation so those don't distract from what you're actually testing.

Thanks for the feedback - looking at the rest of the comments, I definitely agree it seems to be a common theme. Will do better to fix those issues so there's less noise.

Right now I paste screenshots of AWS/Azure/GCP into Claude and ask it questions on how to navigate around / what to do / how to set things up. This seems like a much better experience solely to not have to deal with the weird mac screenshot UX.

We human writers love emdashes also ;)

Why are you worried about that world? Is it because you expect science to progress too fast, or too slow?

Too fast. It's already coding too fast for us to follow, and from what I hear, it's doing incredible work in drug discovery. I don't see any barrier to it getting faster and faster, and with proper testing and tooling, getting more and more reliable, until the role that humans play in scientific advancement becomes at best akin to that of managers of sports teams.

In what applications is ⌘Y Undo and not ⌘Z? Is ⌘Y just a redundant alternative?

Ctrl-Y is typically Redo, not Undo. Maybe that's what they meant.

Apparently on Macs it's usually Command-Shift-Z?