Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mcdeltat's commentslogin

The webpage seems to advertise itself as a Lightroom replacement sort of software?

Which if it is, it better be damn good at it. Adobe may generally suck and Lightroom has many rough edges, but it has streamlined its workflow very well.

This is why I (photographer) haven't switched from Lightroom to an alternative. It's because all the alternatives are targetting different workflows or have a pretty half-assed RAW workflow. We don't need a photo workflow tacked on to something else, we need a proper good workflow made from scratch.


"advanced" in 2026 is closer to "using the app how you want to as rather than the way that will generate the corporation maximum profits"

This stretches back much farther than the 2020s unfortunately...

I recently saw a lecture by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky [1] which discussed the complexities of human violence. We both condone and don't condone violence all the time, depending on social context. And furthers, our ways of expressing violence are varied (even down to tiny things like the silent treatment). We (along with other animals) have always used aggression to enforce social order and obtain social benefit.

Perhaps something to think about in a scenario like this. Personally I think it's interesting that some people are so quick to condone aggressive attacks on powerful people, yet have no comment on those powerful people committing lower levels of violence against the masses. It's all social context.

[1] https://youtu.be/GRYcSuyLiJk?si=HhnAUKelmR7igO9x


only on this site would people need a neuroscience lecture to understand elements of human nature that are apparent to most elementary schoolers

I believe that unique community of HN consist mostly of individuals that weren't able to fully understand those elements of human nature as elementary (and sometimes high-school) schoolers. I stand as one example of such person, it took me about 30 years before I understood that I lacked such innate understanding at school.

There's also the international angle here.

How is a person from a nation that the US President has threatened to annex or invade supposed to feel about seeing domestic violence in the United States? From their perspective a divided United States is less of a personal threat to them.

All this talk about how 'we can't have this in a democracy!' forgets that many of us don't live in that particular democracy, and that particular democracy is threatening other democracies.

What should my response be if a North Korean General is executed? Or if a Russian oligarch 'falls out a window'? Or a corrupt Mexican politician is beheaded by a rival cartel?

These American oligarchs aren't my countrymen, They don't have my best interests in mind, they fund the people who threaten my country, and now they provide the American military with technology that it can use to attack my country.

Their lobbying and campaign contributes have resulted in a Mad King waging an unwinnable war that has severely damaged the global economy and has made my life demonstrably worse. I have never done anything to these people and yet they callously did this to all of us for personal profit well beyond what any human being could never need in a thousand life times.

At the end of the day the less cohesive the American tribe is the better off my tribe is. I wish our incentives were aligned but they just aren't and I am not in any way responsible for that.


I think you meant condemn, but otherwise, well said.

Ah yes in the second paragraph I definitely meant condemn, thank you.

> Perhaps something to think about in a scenario like this. Personally I think it's interesting that some people are so quick to condone aggressive attacks on powerful people, yet have no comment on those powerful people committing lower levels of violence against the masses. It's all social context.

Can I just say that out of all of this discourse happening, this might be the most insightful yet succint position to explain my stance on all of this especially the "its all social context." line.

I feel like many of us here might share an answer publicly but I have always believed that if I am in the shoes of someone else, I might act the way they do so in a sense I understand the human part of it. A human did the violence and why. I understand that. Now we can call this violence inhuman, sure, but this action is still done by human and for many reasons. And I also understand why people condemn these actions, we wish to live in a clean and structural world and then we see the messiness of the world.

I just feel like just condemning an action would do nothing unless we change the ground conditions but that isn't in the hands of even many of us Hackernews users and this is basically a class aspect to it.

I personally feel like there are some similarities to this incident to the Trolley problem actually. Vsauce did a video about it worth watching[0]

Thank you for writing this comment.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA


Yeah most of these "issues" are surely caused by programmers trying to be too smart. The dumbest possible solution which messes around with the input at little as possible is almost always the best solution. Which implies the browser-provided elements are the best because they have probably been designed and validated more than you can do.

If I use an app and it fucks around with the cursor: instant hatred. It's just so annoying. And if you can't get basic human interaction done well in 2026, what else is messed up in your app?


Finance is like an oil well. You can do just about anything technology-wise and as long as it more or less pulls the oil from the ground, the money just keeps coming. So good code is not necessary. Some may even say that terrible code that needs to be replaced every year is a feature in terms of promotion possibilities.

A suspiciously upvoted hyperspecific critique of niche features of the project which are not relevant to most users

Thanks!!!1!!

American discovers basic property of life which their culture purposely rejected in order to be quirky™

((cries in erratic sydney weather))


Ok seems like I don't understand and really dislike chess stalemate/draw rules. So if I make a move which is directly causative to my opponent having no moves which would not result in checkmate, this means the same is a draw?? That makes no sense to me.

This is part of why so many games on a competitive level end in a draw; the player that lacks a path to victory will try to force a stalemate.

Since this makes it harder for the player with an early advantage to win (by constraining their moves), it is considered a feature, not a bug.


I think it's because the rules of chess don't state that making a move that puts yourself in checkmate results in a loss, they state that you're straight up not allowed to make that move. So if the only moves you have left would put you in checkmate, they're not legal moves.

Because some people realised that insurance is the ultimate form of security? Why prevent failure when the consequences of failure can simply be offloaded to others?

> Range is just shallow odometer: ![3]~*!,3.

Ah of course, of course. Trivially, even. Who are we to question the shallow odometers, really?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: