> created by the type design studio Underware

Is the company itself made to appeal to kids

giggles

> For Underware designers Bas Jacobs, Akiem Helmling..making Kermit fun and playful was a way to put kids in a good mood

I lol'ed everytime they were underware designers

> make sure it has a "never ask me again" option

Ha tell that to product managers who shove very useful reminders to enable notifications, sync contacts, auto upgrade, etc.

They offer all sorts of choices like remind me later, not now, i will do this later, don't remind me for one week, not now, tell me more etc ...

But never the option to "no, and never ask me again".

They play dumb in so many creative ways it is jarring.

Those product managers must have a great resistance to pepper spray in their dating lives.

I think the "playing dumb" is jarring due to the obvious disregard for consent. It's really gross.

Google Photos and tying to coerce users into paying for Google One storage.

Yeah.

And when they do, it always has to be something like "No, thanks". Always with the forced gratitude. Never a good old "No, FUCK OFF" to accommodate me.

As someone who’s worked on dark patterns like this in the past, I can assure you, difficulty of creating a new setting is not the reason for the “show this less” pattern.

It’s much more simple: if a “permanently off” setting is worse for metrics, it won’t get built that way.

All of these elements are table stakes for software that people will use and application settings is not a “hard” problem.

Normally it would just be lazy design to annoy the shit out of your users with nags instead of giving them settings but this approach seems to be pervasive at companies that make billions off this software so I can only conclude that it’s intentional.

>There is no "what if I accidentally clicked no but want to reverse that decision, where do I go" problem.

Yes there is, you now can't find the setting, because it doesn't exist, and you need to wait for it to reappear based on some unknown trigger.

This means that there is actually likely MORE state tracking this than if it were a simple setting. You need to store not just the setting for this particular feature, but also potentially the last time they were asked or whatever else triggers them to get asked again. It’s either poor design, or explicitly designed to repeatedly push a feature on a user even if they don’t want it.

Webp supported yay!

Amazon also invests in own hardware and silicon -- the Inferentia and Trainium chips for example.

But I am not sure how AWS and Google Cloud match up in terms of making this verticial integration work for their competitive advantage.

Any insight there - would be curious to read up on.

I guess Microsoft for that matter also has been investing -- we heard about the latest quantum breakthrough that was reported as creating a fundamenatally new physical state of matter. Not sure if they also have some traction with GPUs and others with more immediate applications.

I think Amazon, Meta have been trying on inference hardware, they throw their hands up on training; but TPUs can actually be used in training, based on what I saw in Google’s colab.

Done similar to help kids with learning beginner math.

Should now be possible to make an app that specializes in making new apps on demand based on simple requirements like these :)

As Khan Academy is experimenting with 1:1 tutoring using LLMs... this may be an adjacent space for them to explore: let users generate apps/games on a math or science topic of choice, beyond the regular quizzes.

Can you add a visual tutorial with examples.

I had no idea what the numbers are. Came back to read your text description above and still only vaguely understand it. Sorry, ESL.

OT:

There is a initiative around bringing Indian languages into today's tech.

Named BHASHINI.

I initially thought the title was referring to that project given the similarity in name.

(Bhasha = Language)

Haven't read past the problem statement to avoid spoilers.

How difficult can it be to brute force this. (Try all possible ___domain names within a reasonable length)

Take help from AI while you are at it.

I think you might need api access to a nameserver to take that approach. because if you just throw 100,000,000 dns lookups at your default server they are going to throttle you.

Depending on what you understand by the term "prefix" you can dramatically shrink the search space without doing any thinking.

As I understand it, yeah, there's a way to ask the .ai nameserver for its entire "zone" (the mapping from ___domain names to... everything else). That's a "zone transfer" a.k.a. "AXFR" request, which you can make by first locating a nameserver that knows about .ai:

    $ dig NS ai.

Now you have the names of .ai's nameservers, and the glue records for some of them:

    ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
    v0n3.nic.ai.  107 IN A 199.115.155.1
    v0n3.nic.ai.  107 IN AAAA 2001:500:a3::1
    v0n0.nic.ai.  7 IN A 199.115.152.1

Now you ask that nameserver for a zone transfer:

    $ dig AXFR ai. @199.115.155.1

...And it quickly says "no, not to you; I don't know you and so I'm not going to spend the bandwidth to tell you all that."

    ; <<>> DiG 9.18.30-0ubuntu0.22.04.2-Ubuntu <<>> AXFR ai. @199.115.155.1
    ;; global options: +cmd
    ; Transfer failed.

But hey, that's how you'd ask. Now, if you were on the nameserver's whitelist, you'd see the whole zone, and the answer to the blog's puzzle would be somewhere in there. (But note that the answer is also at the end of TFA; you don't have to solve it yourself if you don't want to.)

I wouldn't use the words "API access" to describe "permission to make AXFR requests," but yeah, it's the same general idea: if you're not on the list, you can't do the thing.

More than I care to know about AXFR: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-notes.html

You can usually also ask ICANN's CZDS service for a particular zone file, if you can give them a valid reason. But in this case, they don't seem to have the ai tld.

Thanks for this comment I found it very informative. :)

I think that “prefix” properly interpreted makes this a small search set.

Even if they move only part of the data before the deadline ..they stop paying for that the moment they delete it from S3. (Doesn't work that way in reverse.)

They can start saving thousands of dollars even before the deadline if they are able to start moving as soon as their own infra is up and incrementally move and delete data from S3. If their data consumers can work with that, that is.

If part of the data does not need the full S3 guarantees of durability and availability ..they could probably save more by using cheaper tiers while on S3.

> One out of every two Danes has seen the documentary.

Why not simpler English -- "half of the country has watched it"

Also pendatic aside -- i think "every two danes" is a stretch -- i am sure we can find many instances of "two danes" where both has watched it. Or neither. Some are being born as we speak (write).

One out of every two X is an extremely common and perfectly reasonable phrase in english, meaning your complaint about finding 2 Danes who haven't watched it is nonsensical as we know they mean on average.

I know this format is common usage but don't see it commonly used to represent this fraction-- 50% or half -- where this construct seems needlessly long or formal.

The second part was just playful aside -- not serious. Ofcourse that didn't come through. I know there is a common sensical read that all readers will apply to it and it will not be misinterpreted. I thought this being HN people will find it amusing to treat it as a logical statement and parse.

> Why not simpler English -- "half of the country has watched it"

I guess as it was aimed at a British audience, and that is not an uncommon way for us to form such sentences.

If you hadn't mentioned it, I'd not even have noticed it, simply parsing it as "half".

If this were social media, at least 10 people including me would be replying with the Major Hellstrom Sees Three Fingers meme.

Why say "four out of five dentists" instead of "80% of dentists"?

Seems a bit needlessly long when employed for a concept more mundanely called "half". A lay person uses half more often, I would imagine.

For all other fractions, I don't feel it is that odd to use X out of Y construct.

Because that is just what we do.

Expressing things as percentages was a late arrival; when until the mid 70s folks had to be able to cope with, and mentally manipulate vulgar fractions.

"four out of five" has the same number of syllables as "80%". "Three out of four" has even fewer syllables than 75%, for that matter. So I can see why those stuck around. Meanwhile "one out of two" is wordier than just "half". Are you saying British people still use it in such an inefficient case anyway?

The media does when writing such things up, stylistic choices.

It is also likely to be "one in two" rather than "one out of two", in speech "half", "three quarters", "seven eighths" etc is more likely.