> It's viewing the situation through the lens of Anglo capitalist opinions.

Came here to say this. It's a very narrow perspective that shows in sub headlines like "Kinship societies are wealth-destroying societies".

One could also take the lens of "Kinship societies are making people's wealth more equal to reduce competition and jealousy, increase harmony and happiness" – although I have no data whether these people are genuinely more happy. It quotes some business-oriented Ghanians who seem quite unhappy about sharing their wealth. And yet, the perspective of indivual wealth over group wealth is assumed and never critically reflected upon.

I'm not saying that their way is better or something like that. I just think that reading the article is a good exercise in reflecting on one's own views on life and wealth.

Question 9 imho is the most German one ("When someone says 'we should get coffee sometime,' you understand this to mean:").

It depends on context a bit obviously, but most Germans are sincere about it. You either propose coffee or you don't.

However, there's a subset of Germans who seem to propose coffee and then don't follow up themselves, but it's not just a phrase. If you are the one to follow up, they'd join you. Which, to say the least, is annoying, too.

From my German perspective, asking someone for grabbing coffee sometime and not meaning it is a completely stupid thing to say. Why would you suggest it? Why should the other person have to decode this as a "nice thing to say but not meant literally" if you could say a hundred other things that could be meant literally and are still nice, like "see you around" or something like that?

It's the whims of emotion - in the moment a person says it it can be quite sincere, as that's their genuine mood in that instance, but later on the mood passes and the effort involved in arranging something outweighs the desire.

In that sense it does communicate something: I like and have enjoyed your company in this moment.

Flippant of course, but not too dastardly.

Maybe Germans are emotionally more stable to know that the statement will hold true in the future, when they say it now.

> If you are the one to follow up, they'd join you.

I get this. I don't want to be imposing myself, and I want to give the person an out if they don't want to meet me.

But I also want them to know that I would be up for having a coffee.

That was the one I struggled the most with.

I generally mean social invitations sincerely, and expect that other people do too, but also my social anxiety leaves me somewhat relieved if we don't follow through.

Also, the Kaffeklatsch is at 3pm, there's no need to discuss a time for it.

I think that some people are missing a layer of abstraction and they cannot tell whether they want to have a coffee or not until they actually start planning it, and once they are in that mental zone, they assess how they feel about things.

This gets mixed up with the whole dance "I want to measure how much you care about having a coffee with me". We're social creatures so negotiation of your position in the hierarchy is very fucking important. You invite to a coffee someone who's from the same or higher social class. You accept invitations from the same or higher social class. Stronger signal "I really want to have a coffee with you" corresponds with bigger difference in hierarchy. Your goal is to game the system so that you're at the top - everyone invites you for a coffee, you decline all invitations. Actually meeting for a coffee is basically failure of diplomacy. People are subconsciously, without any awareness at all, creating very elaborate strategies to this game.

Where I come from it's almost always considered sincere and I would think it would apply for mos of the Europe where we don't greet each other "how are you" without being interested in the actual answer like certain orange crazies voting nation.

Personally I thought the 6th question about the rules was the most German one, sticking to the rules no matter what (that would be actually the least Chinese one, where rules are made up just to exist, but not to enforce).

Struggled most with last two questions, too many correct options to answer.

German -33% Autistic -36%

Apparently: "You probably ended up here through social media, which means someone you follow scored either Both or German. They sent it to you as a question or a joke. You are their control group."

Same here. Google lets you refunds or partial refunds and still don’t disclose any customer details. All you see is transaction IDs. I never understood why Apple doesn’t show a history of all IAPs in a similar way with similar control.

You messing with a computer and teens doom-scrolling social media are two entirely different things.

Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.

We don't need a nanny state to help with either of the two things. We can just have parents do their jobs if they wish to restrict social media usage.

But they don't - either through lack of knowledge or just can't be bothered to enforce it because they don't want to upset their kid. If parents were doing this already, the government wouldn't have to step in.

The only reason government are doing this is because they want to force everyone to identify themselves online.

Their point is: for some individuals it can be beneficial.

My point is: on a societal level, the numbers are pretty clear that teens consume too much media (and social media is even more addictive) and their skills and attention span deteriorate.

I think you understood my point and you understand the reasons for the act. But I'm just protesting on behalf of the kids that will pretty much have their lives ruined or made worse for this decision, for what it's worth.

You missed it again.

The “computers were considered dangerous” means that people generally thought they were dangerous, especially to children.

> Most of them take mediocre to bad shots and then somehow manage to make them worse.

Examples of this? What do you consider mediocre, but is still hugely popular?

It would be unkind to single anyone out so I am not going to. The thing is, I can for the life of me not think of a single photo influencer/youtuber who is also a popular _photographer_. They're popular influencers/youtubers.

As for what I mean by mediocre: let's say you are looking at a portrait of someone you don't know. If you can't remember it 10-30 minutes later, it was probably mediocre or worse. Would you recognize the subject if you met them on the a street one day later?

Most portraits tend to be bad because they completely fail to capture the subject. People fuss over lighting and editing and color grading and whatnot, but they don't actually pay attention to the person they are shooting. I see quite a few of these people with huge social media followings who can't, for the life of them, take pictures of humans. And yet, they teach their inability to make portraits to others.

I also know professional photographers who are genuinely bad at taking portraits. And then there are those rare people who just nail it most of the time. Notice this when looking at a portrait of someone you know. Is it "them"?

Another category where you see a lot of bad photos is wildlife photography. You will see endless pictures of birds that possibly could go in a bird-spotting book purely for identification purposes. But, to steal a line from my wife after looking at a certain facebook group "it's just a bunch of tack sharp ducks set against blurred out sky". And my wife spends an inordinate amount of time looking at birds.

All you need to make bad nature photography is a big lens, a location and some time. It takes no talent. All you need to make technically good, but completely pointless nature photos is a big lens, a location, time and a decent modern camera. Then turn on 3D tracking and spray whenever something moves. Animals live in nature -- they belong in context -- they do things. Good nature photographers manage to communicate this.

(I was actually tempted to name the "it's just a bunch of tack sharp ducks..."-group, but I'm not going to. Though it isn't that hard to guess).

We drown in technically excellent images that are dull as crap.

(To be clear: I'm a mediocre photographer. I'm very aware of it. I occasionally shoot something that may be worth looking at -- but still rarely something you'd remember)

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

FastAPI server on the same Hetzner box? The endpoints are written by ZeroClaw?

I use another vps for FastAPI. I assume the vps with Zeroclaw will become compromised.

I don't use other people's skills. Just use Claude Code for adding endpoints and the relative skill.

Communication via Telegram bot, calendar via synced CalDAV server. Emails not connected; I don't need it personally.

LLM API is OpenCode Go Minimax. $10/month capped, I have never hit the limits.

idk, indie games that come to my attention seem to be very polished. Which one is successful and fits your criteria?

Another recommendation, not a first contact story, but a very weird world and you wonder why things are how they are:

Inverted World by Christopher Priest

Same. Lack of search and lack of scrollbars make me wonder why this project got so much attention in the first place. iTerm2 seems way more capable.

I suspect it is "just" the very nice-looking default theme in Ghostty. I updated my iTerm2 colors with colors I picked from Tailwind‘s excellent color palette and iterm2 now feels fresh and has all the features I want.

Mitchell’s attempts at more correctness and better speed, plus the no-nonsense UX. iTerm2 is confusing and overwhelming and bloated for those of us who just want a terminal that works.

Not sure what to make of this. React is missing entirely. Or is this report also assuming that React is the default for everything and not worth mentioning at all? Just like shadcn/ui's first mention of React is somewhere down the page or hidden in the docs?

Furthermore, what's the point of "no tools named"? Why would I restrict myself like that? If I put "use Nodejs, Hono, TypeScript and use Hono's html helper to generate HTML on the server like its 2010, write custom CSS, minimize client-side JS, no Tailwind" in CLAUDE.md, it happily follows this.

As someone who runs a small dev agency, I'm very interested in research like this.

Let's say some Doctor decides to vibecode an app on the weekend, with next to 0 exposure to software development until she started hearing about how easy it was to create software with these tools. She makes incredible progress and is delighted in how well it works, but as she considers actually opening it up the world she keeps running into issues. How do I know this is secure? How do I keep this maintained and running?

I want to be in a position where she can find me to get professional help, so it's very helpful to know what stacks these kinds of apps are being built in.

claudecode _loves_ shadcn/ui. I hadn't even heard of it until i was playing around with claudecode. It seems fine to me and if the coding agent loves it then more power to it, i don't really care. That's the problem.

I think that makes coding agent choices extremely suspect, like i don't really care what it uses as long as what's produced works and functions inline with my expectations. I can totally see companies paying Anthropic to promote their tool of choice to the top of claudecodes preferences. After thinking about it, i'm not sure if that's a problem or not. I don't really care what it uses as long as my requirements (all of them) are met.

Because the primary and future audience of Claude et al don’t know the tools they want, or even that a choice exists.

> Furthermore, what's the point of "no tools named"?

There are vibe coders out there that don't know anything about coding.

I mean, i guess that will shortly put an end to the "no code" movement.