mittensc (u/mittensc)

mittensc commented on AI is killing B2B SaaS nmn.gl/blog/ai-killing-b2... · Posted by u/namanyayg

bandrami · 4 days ago

To the first question, if your senior devs can do that there's almost certainly something more directly valuable to your business they could be doing than solving a problem your vendor has already solved

The second question is a valid one, and I think it will somewhat raise the bar of what successful SAAS vendors will have to offer in coming years

mittensc · 4 days ago

depends how much the vendor chargers.

mittensc commented on AI is killing B2B SaaS nmn.gl/blog/ai-killing-b2... · Posted by u/namanyayg

bandrami · 4 days ago

It's a tale as old as time that developers, particularly junior developers, are convinced they could "slap together something in one weekend" that would replace expensive SAAS software and "just do the parts of it we actually use". Unfortunately, the same arguments against those devs regular-coding a bespoke replacement apply to them vibe-coding a bespoke replacement: management simply doesn't want to be responsible for it. I didn't understand it before I was in management either, but now that I'm in management I 100% get it.

mittensc · 4 days ago

what if this time it's senior developers and they actually can slap something together better then the expensive SAAS offerings?

what if the expensive SAAS offering is just as vibe coded and poor quality as what a junior offers?

mittensc commented on Women rejecting the hijab have doomed Iran's brutal regime telegraph.co.uk/news/2026... · Posted by u/binning

dyauspitr · 4 days ago

Not true, I’ve lived in middle eastern countries where it’s not as draconian and it’s definitely not mostly involuntary.

mittensc · 4 days ago

perhaps they want to wear because they dont want those slightly better consequences?

mittensc commented on Women rejecting the hijab have doomed Iran's brutal regime telegraph.co.uk/news/2026... · Posted by u/binning

almosthere · 4 days ago

In many interviews people keep saying that in Islamic countries the Hijab is totally optional, but that the woman want to wear it.

Now we're finding out the woman that don't want to wear it get shot.

mittensc · 4 days ago

they want to wear it because they dont want to get shot or arrested and tortured

mittensc commented on Trump: Republicans 'should take over the voting' and 'nationalise' US elections bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c... · Posted by u/ColinWright

0xy · 5 days ago

Trump was referring to the SAVE/MEGA Act, which mandates paper ballots. It forces states to implement traceable paper ballots.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-white-house-says...

mittensc · 5 days ago

If Trump was referring to them he would have mentioned them.

Here is what he said word for word, where did he mention those?

"The Republicans should say: 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalise the voting," Trump said during an appearance on the podcast of his former deputy FBI director, Dan Bongino.

mittensc commented on Trump: Republicans 'should take over the voting' and 'nationalise' US elections bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c... · Posted by u/ColinWright

0xy · 5 days ago

It's always surprising that political bias can infect even the most technically experienced person on HN and force them to claim that inherently insecure electronic voting machines are totally legit and should be used and expanded.

Not only are these machines actively a security nightmare with dozens of blatant security holes, ANY form of electronic voting or tallying is inherently exploitable.

A paper trail prevents innumerable amounts of tampering, human error or fraud and is prevalent in most democracies that value accurate elections.

Before 2016, it was common for media to report on the inherent insecurity of these machines. Now, they claim that questioning a machine running EoL-ed Windows 7 with an exposed USB port and a "abcde" password is verboten and against democracy. [1] [2] [3]

Even a theoretical open-source electronic voting machine (doesn't exist, by the way) with cryptographically provable results should be looked at with extreme skepticism.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...

[2] https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/researchers-at-def-con-r...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-hac...

mittensc · 5 days ago

what does this have to do with posted article?

so you think, states should move to paper voting brilliant, offtopic.

What trump said is still abhorent, he wants to nationalize elections?! how does that work?

mittensc commented on Mozilla is building an AI 'rebel alliance' to take on OpenAI, Anthropic cnbc.com/2026/01/27/mozil... · Posted by u/donutshop

mittensc · 10 days ago

> Mozilla is focused on deploying its roughly $1.4 billion worth of reserves to support “mission driven” organizations, according to a new report.

> The nonprofit, also the parent of Firefox, is investing in artificial intelligence startups that are working on safety and governance issues in AI.

Why?, they want to go bankrupt?, do they like burning money?

I would understand investing in AI Tech... Brilliant if they use Mozilla contributors.

I would understand but investing in other startups... with due diligence and something that might make a difference

> that are working on safety and governance issues in AI.

what... why... what the hell... that's governments job, not mozillas...

mittensc commented on Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study keck.usc.edu/news/adoptio... · Posted by u/hhs

trimethylpurine · 13 days ago

>Oh no, am i bad at making jokes?, Or is your argument a joke?

No my argument was serious. You've sliced your data gratuitously. You're also making rude jokes, and I think there are HN rules about that somewhere. But, I'll forgive you.

Right where you found your data (you shouldn't use Wikipedia for science), is a map of coal plants in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stati...

You looked up the share of energy for the US as if every vehicle owner spends equal time driving in every city. That's dishonest. A vehicle owner typically drives in one city nearly all the time. If that city is coal powered as we can see, many are, that owner should not operate an EV. But policy relying on blanket data like yours would incentivize their doing so. That's bad for everyone, except the policymaker and his buddies selling EV related products.

The primary point, however, is that EVs move the pollutants up the supply chain. The car itself is non-emission, but the power plant and battery cycle are not! And the alternative power sources aren't really clean either. Nuclear, for example, requires mining, enrichment, etc. (all carbon heavy) and then we still need to deal with disposal which doesn't even exist! We're sweeping that under the rug when we call that clean energy. We don't have a solution for waste so we just exclude it from our impact calculations? Ridiculous.

Now add a toxic battery on top of all of that, and all of the mining and waste disposal associated with it. You've moved your pollutants to China, added shipping lanes, and dumped more oil and now lithium into the ocean. This may be worse overall and it's for sure worse for owners of cars in coal powered locations.

But you do get to say that the EV in a vacuum is zero emissions (at the location of inertial output only). Nice work!

Your argument zoomed out to blanket statement the US where it suits you, and then zoomed in to the car itself to exclude where your pollutants are. It's truly very dishonest. That argument is damaging to the public interest and to the environment, and insults the sciences.

mittensc · 13 days ago

You select your 'facts' to fit your narrative.

If the obvious fact - coal is 20% of energy production in the US and falling - you worm yorself around it.

If you want to look at the US as a country, you use number of the country.

As such, coal is 20% of power used by EV.

A massive improvement.

Point dismissed, try something else.

> The primary point, however, is that EVs move the pollutants up the supply chain.

Massively less then ICE, have you researched the oil production chain or does it magically appear at the pump for you at no cost?

Have you researched the actual pollution numbers of your car?

> Now add a toxic battery on top of all of that, and all of the mining and waste disposal associated with it.

Source?

> You've moved your pollutants to China, added shipping lanes, and dumped more oil and now lithium into the ocean.

What added shipping lanes?, one more EV, one less ICE. Transport is the same.

> But you do get to say that the EV in a vacuum is zero emissions (at the location of inertial output only). Nice work!

I say it is massively better then ICE! I also say that I like not breathing cancerous ICE car exhaust.

> Your argument zoomed out to blanket statement the US where it suits you

I zoomed it to country level where you left it and where we can talk.

You, being defeated, had to imagine a very unrealistic scenario where you think you're right.

> It's truly very dishonest.

What you are doing is, yes.

> That argument is damaging to the public interest and to the environment, and insults the sciences.

Did you look in the mirror and say that?

Alas, my comment is for others amusent that might stumble onto this thread.

You are arguing in bad faith so good luck, you're wrong!