Readit NewsI just began reading amusing ourselves to death.
I read The Economist, which doesn't cover sports at all.
It's mostly 1-2 page long articles for each story, blocked into categories (UK, Europe, US, The Americas, Asia, China, Business, Finance, Tech, Culture at the end).
Personally, I, as a programmer, read the news in the same way as my grandad who was a farmer. I read a printed weekly publication (in my case The Economist) on Sunday morning. Outside of Sunday morning I don't read the news at all.
I prefer printed news to media-supported news, because I think the imagery (I acknowledge The Economist still has images) and presentation of news, especially on TV detracts from the message it's trying to convey a lot of the time. After reading some of Neil Postman's books (notably Amusing Ourselves to Death), I find it strange to watch televised news whereby one minute I'm watching footage of a disaster, then the next minute I'm seeing sports news updates or an advert. Just like normal learning, I think news demands longer form content for proper understanding.
Reading the news on a low frequency basis also gives time for news stories to properly develop. Breaking news can be filled with speculation and incorrect details, which even if you keep up with, you can miss later corrections or crucial details. Not to mention the stress involved in it. Chances are if some real breaking news happens, like a natural disaster or war, I'll hear somebody else tell me.
I guess if you're unemployed or in an area with spectacularly low wages, and don't have any ideas of your own that seem monetizable.
>Most people will continue spending $1.00/month here, and $2.99/month there.
If I make 100 dollars an hour as a consultant, and I spend 1 hour to make a local version that never needs any updating on my part to replicate a portion of that functionality I get for $1.00/month, it will take me 101 months to see any profit on my investment of time.
Cut my pay in half and I still need 51 months to see any profit. It would be idiotic for me to waste 1 hour on that.
And let's face it, code when made is a cost center, you will have to keep it up to date (so as to not introduce security hazards etc.) you will never break even much less earn anything for your time.
Something designed without content suggestions, ads, influence and constant un-necessary redesigns, for privacy and to retain their own data.
Good for you economically. Some people are unemployed and underpaid. In fact, most are. Half of your post just came across as you broadcasting your economic success.
This reminds me of the people who think they can build docsend in a weekend. No, you cannot. You can build a wee throwaway app with some of the features of docsend. But that is not equivalent to what people pay docsend for.
Businesses and SaaS aren’t just a bunch of static code. Code is a part of them, but it’s actually a minority of the work and the service. It’s very common to see founders fall out because CTOs believe product and company = tech and CEOs do not.
If you’re a technical founder, learning this lesson will separate you from the pack.
Replacing some subscription app like Any.do, Google Calendar, fitness/diet tracking or basically any other CRUD-centric app, needn't be insecure, and a semi-competent developer can easily host it, continue further development (with or without vibe coding) and secure it. There's huge benefit for software developers that do find themselves using many of these apps with active subscriptions to make their own, tailored for themselves, and cut down their spending.
Yes, when it comes to commercialising such software, more work needs to be done (mostly in support and marketing), but for personal use it's fine. The author explicitly states they don't trust vibe coding enough to turn these into products.
The writing is hardly on the wall for all these companies which make little todo list apps and calendars. The vast majority of people could get a LLM to produce an alternative but the lacking they have in basic software engineering would eventually be a hurdle to further development. Most people will continue spending $1.00/month here, and $2.99/month there. There's no reason why software engineers need to do that anymore, unless paying this gives them access to some sort of content repository (music, books) or actual advanced software.
A minimal web client audio player with some basic database tables in the back for organising and searching does me fine.
Building all the software you use yourself, whether by hand or by vibe coding, cuts you off from the world.
I have no philosophical objection to vibe-coding apps for yourself, but personally, I wouldn’t be 1/10th of the engineer I am if I wasn’t constantly exposed to the work of others.
For some, this trend worries software engineers — who needs software if they can vibe code it themselves? — but I am much more optimistic. I think people will start valuing good software a lot more. Claude code can deliver the first 90%, but we all know it is the last 90% that differentiates.
I switched from Spotify to buying MP3s and using my own audio client, because I'm fed up of a company telling me which music I should listen to every single time I open the app. It costs more, but I own the music and I escape the constant redesigns, price increases and influential behaviour.
Most apps are very simple and there isn't too much to learn, especially if you're building it to scale to a userbase of yourself. I can't see the need for a ton of CRUD apps which demand subscription fees personally. If you build them yourself, you get to keep your own data, build it out the way you want it, keep it that way, and use computers as a person using a tool as opposed to a customer buying a product.
For me, talking face-to-face is the only real means of socialising. I can barely even see the appeal of having a proper conversation on a chat application (they're much more more ideal for arranging meetups, sharing information quickly and keeping up with people far away).
It's incredibly annoying that we're expected to shift real world social interaction into these apps and platforms. It annoys me when somebody I meet begins talking to me more on chat apps than they do in real life.
However much more than that, I cannot understand the concept of posting personal details, media, worldviews and opinions underneath your own name on some platform, in which anywhere from dozens of friends and family, to the whole world, can see it. Even large group chats seem unappealing. What is the appeal of this for anybody besides the people that run such platforms for engagement and advertising?
Why do people want to see others they do or don't know doing this? What's the point of it?
Why does anybody want or engage in systems of digital reputation (likes, kudos, karma)? Moreso why are these values, or the number of followers/digital friends in anyway important? We all know that these things can be openly bought. It pains me to imagine all the one line comments, and upvote/downvote with timestamps being stored on a server somewhere.
The wildest part is that the companies that provide these platforms are worth more than companies that actually produce meaningful products and services. These are platforms that could only succeed by being free* and then abusing existing users.
Hacker News is the only place online I post, and I only do so in a non-social discourse. I don't know anybody I've replied to or been replied to by on here, and nor do they know me.
Serious question from a former Nova Prime user.
I want a black background, with a simple A-Z list of the apps I have on my phone, with some hidden. No icons, no transparency effects and animations.
https://xcancel.com/lellouchenico/status/2015775970330882319
Or here's the linked article:
https://www.numerama.com/cyberguerre/2167301-la-france-veut-...
And here's the app, Visio:
https://lasuite.numerique.gouv.fr/produits/visio