analogears's comments

There's something to this. I recently shipped a music curation site and deliberately avoided React/Next/etc - just HTML, CSS, vanilla JS. The cognitive load difference is stark. The 'peak' might be less about capability and more about us rediscovering that simpler tools often suffice.

Speaking of JavaScript's evolution - I've been building a music player (muz11.com) and it's remarkable how far we've come. The Web Audio API, MediaSession for lock screen controls, smooth animations via requestAnimationFrame... all running client-side with no framework, just vanilla JS. Thirty years ago this would have required a desktop app and probably a record label deal.

The irony is that 'freeing' JavaScript from Oracle's trademark might matter less than freeing ourselves from the framework churn. The platform itself is incredibly capable now.

This reminds me why simple single-purpose web toys used to be so satisfying. No account, no onboarding, no "upgrade to pro" - just a thing that does one thing well. The world counter is a nice touch without being gamified into oblivion..

Tried this on iPhone - the category tabs (Sports, World News, Business) get cut off on the right and there's no horizontal scroll indicator, so I didn't realise there were more options at first. The story cards also aren't using the full screen width, leaving wasted space on both sides.

Cool concept though - the source count and "+N" spread metrics give a quick sense of which stories have legs.

One thing missing from this framing: the feedback loop speed. Animal evolution operates on generational timescales, but LLM "commercial evolution" happens in months. The optimisation pressure might be weaker per-iteration but the iteration rate is orders of magnitude faster.

Curious whether this means LLMs will converge toward something more general (as the A/B testing covers more edge cases) or stay jagged forever because no single failure mode means "death".