I feel like it said a whole lot without giving me much to take action on. Like great, you summarized the current state of affairs but it doesn't make clear what I am to do about it.
It definitely feels like it was edited with AI, structure and tone seem like the usual AI "polish".
Lately I've been working on an embedded system with limited access to std lib/libc and this was very interesting but I was hoping to see more information, like how can I tell if something will be supported? what are alternatives? what does implementation specific mean?
I guess I am used to HN having more in-depth articles.
> I feel like it said a whole lot without giving me much to take action on. Like great, you summarized the current state of affairs but it doesn't make clear what I am to do about it.
To be fair, not every article is a call to action. Sometimes they exist purely for informational purposes.
Are you making this claim specifically about this one particular post, or about everything on the blog, which dates back about a decade ?
Like "These Artemis 2 photos were generated by AI" is wrong but "The broadcast footage of the Apollo missions was generated by AI" is incredibly stupid and I want to understand if I'm about to engage with an incredibly stupid opinion.
This was written by AI, wasn't it?
I feel like it said a whole lot without giving me much to take action on. Like great, you summarized the current state of affairs but it doesn't make clear what I am to do about it.
It definitely feels like it was edited with AI, structure and tone seem like the usual AI "polish".
Lately I've been working on an embedded system with limited access to std lib/libc and this was very interesting but I was hoping to see more information, like how can I tell if something will be supported? what are alternatives? what does implementation specific mean?
I guess I am used to HN having more in-depth articles.
> I feel like it said a whole lot without giving me much to take action on. Like great, you summarized the current state of affairs but it doesn't make clear what I am to do about it.
To be fair, not every article is a call to action. Sometimes they exist purely for informational purposes.
Are you making this claim specifically about this one particular post, or about everything on the blog, which dates back about a decade ?
Like "These Artemis 2 photos were generated by AI" is wrong but "The broadcast footage of the Apollo missions was generated by AI" is incredibly stupid and I want to understand if I'm about to engage with an incredibly stupid opinion.