I like my memories ephemeral and fragile. Reading AI-generated articles about my loved ones in the typical apathetic Wikipedia tone sounds like a deeply unnerving experience to me.
That’s the direction this developer went in but I think you could also go in a more personal direction and leverage automation where it’s effective but avoid all generative text.
Yeah, that's my feeling too. It's an impressive and interesting project, but I don't want to do that with my life. It has had its ups and downs and some things I just don't want to dive back into like that (and don't want others to read either).
The genealogy part – researching my ancestors' life – feels more useful.
Would there be any obligation to read the bits concerning yourself ?
I see this more as a digital artifact for future generations. I would love to read all about the events in the lives of my ancestors (no matter how detached the narration) going back generations.
Imagine if you could read in detail about your parental ancestors in 1500s, what they worked as, what they liked doing, where they spent their first holiday together…
There are more than 500 years from the 1500s, let's say roughly 500. That makes around 20 generations and about 2^20 = 1048576 ancestors. There are historical records that give you an idea what people similar to you if not your own ancestors were going about but details would be overwhelming to count and sift through. I welcome that details fade away and that we don't need to carry the whole baggage but just some bits that stayed. Things will take their natural course and whatever prominent will preserve if it's worthy.
Good point!
I already write some stuff down that I never intend to read myself but hope would be of some use for future generations. It's not always easy knowing what's worth recording. And sometimes really boring stuff can be interesting 100 years from now, but you wouldn't know.
Yeah, but do they work? Last time I gave bun a chance their runtime had serious issues with frequent crashes. Faster package installation or spin-up time is meaningless if it comes at the cost of stability and compatibility.
I can only speak for my bank (Nordea), but they do offer a separate 2FA device you can order if you "can't use" your smartphone for whatever reason. As a solution it sucks, but technically you're not forced to use a mobile phone to login. I'd be surprised if other banks didn't offer similar fallbacks.
My bank only has two options for authentication: Either you use their mobile app or buy an authentication device from them that's the size of a small phone. Either way I need a handheld device.
I can't say I'm happy with the direction of things. They used to offer slips of paper with single-use codes that worked fine, but those are now deprecated in favor of the smartphone app.
You can use a lot of those authentication / bank apps on a tablet without issue. Obviously it’s worth verifying before making the swap to a flip phone, but I like having minimal apps on my smartphone so I still have a backup if needed.
Then your bank is garbage and you should switch to a better one. My main bank (USAA) lets me use a one time code sent to my email as a second factor (or SMS, or a code from their app). If they started requiring me to use the app I would drop them immediately. Why is "but my banking app" treated like a valid objection every time user freedom comes up?
Because it's most banks that are like that. If you don't have this problem, then you're lucky your bank is actually technologically incompetent by industry standards.
The fact that they are easily spoofed is of no consequence for this use-case: entering an invalid 2FA code will simply fail to log you in into your banking. You should obviously not follow a link from an email that is not obviously coming from your request (and you should validate the top-level domain is what it needs to be even in that case), but you should be entering the bank web site directly.
The bigger problem is SIM swapping, which is more of a social engineering attack.
The most egregious thing Perplexity did was to straight up ignore robots.txt. Cloudflare promise not to do that, so if we take their word for it, it's a quite different setup.
That said, I'm not fan of letting users forge whatever user agents they please. Instead, AIUI to opt-out of getting crawled I have to look for the existence of certain request headers[1].
I thought so too, but it's almost too insane to me to believe the author would use generative AI to talk about the death of social media due to the flood of slop from the very same generative AI. But only almost.
Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot of green accounts posting nonsense. They generally do get flagged or moderated quickly though, so I wouldn't say they have a large effect overall, at least yet.
reply