We have a yoto for our son, and its a great experience, but be prepared for pricing of content to match what we used to page for cds/tapes. e.g., the pout-pout fish card is $8 USD for 10 minutes of content [1].
I think that's ok, as he actually would get a lot more than 10 minutes of use out of it, and its great to pay the creators while not having to worry about ads manipulating my kid. But it highlights how expectations for the pricing of audio/video content has changed (probably for the worse)... for me at least.
We have a Yoto here as well, for our six-year-old.
The concept is great - RFID as a replacement for cassette audiobooks (with fewer storage limitations!).
I do wish it integrated better with sources of free audiobooks. The Libby app gets us access to a lot of audiobooks through the public library, many of which are not even available for purchase through the Yoto player. We can only use it to play them for him as a Bluetooth speaker from our phones, which removes a lot of the utility of the player (he can't navigate chapters, we can't set a sleep timer, we can't use our phones for other things).
The concept is great though and the specific product, walled content garden notwithstanding, has been a net win for us.
The Yoto system actively encourages you to buy 'blank' cards to fill with your own content, and the process is relatively simple. Simply remove the DRM from the borrowed media, (convert to an appropriate format if required), then upload to the card. Wipe your card whenever you borrow a new audio book from the libarary for a clear conscience. yt-dlp is also a great source of content.
This is true - we've taken advantage of it somewhat (my wife ripped Harry Potter this way, and we recorded ourselves narrating some favorites).
Mainly (shamefully) "Simply remove the DRM" is doing some work in your sentence. We just, uh, haven't gotten together the executive function to figure out how to do it with the Libby app on the iPhone. As a Hacker News poster I want to be the type of person who figures this out. But, I have not.
That's fair, library systems can be very variable, where we are we can access audiobooks on a desktop, so there's access to the raw files, I can see how if you're doing it with an iPhone app it's considerably harder!
For Christmas, we got several members of our extended family to read their favourite story book into a voice memo on our phone(s). We set up a blank Yoto card with all those stories, and with custom icons.
It was a great stocking stuffer for our toddler, and very cute to hear him call out who is reading :)
The make your own cards are really nice for this. We bought a bunch of them and you can add any mp3s you want onto them. We even print stickers to put on the front.
Seconding this. We've made Daddy Mix Tapes, "Mommy Reads Stories", and other compilations.
Adding to the plethora of good ideas here: My wife bought these hanging tabs to stick onto the cards[1], and then strings a keycable[2] through them so my son has groups of them together. Yoto makes folding binders for them as well, but the keycable method seems to be a bit easier for our 5yo to handle.
The blank cards they sell are great. We borrow audio books from the library and I rip them to a card, you can reuse them as well so don’t need to buy too many. I also put radio streams on them, like classical stations for when my sons going to bed.
You can use third party cards which are sold for a fraction of a price too. There are a bit of hassle to setup (you need to link an original card and then clone it to a cheap card), but when done they work flawlessly
People already mentioned the blank cards, but the Yoto club subscription is actually a pretty great deal. You get a ton of credits that you can just apply to books and the value works out pretty well.
You do have to watch out for Short content, but if you were buying audiobooks on Audible, you’d have the same issue .
They have blank cards. They're a minor pain to set up in their UI, you have to get the audio files from somewhere, and you have to print a sticker so it's a bit of work but very doable.
Tonie boxes are extremely widespread in Germany, and while the media are similarly priced, there's a huge used market and public libraries have them as well. Nothing is tied to a specific account or box, so there are no restrictions on resale or lending. Almost shocking in this day and age.
Haha, as a tangent: I don't get the endurance of the pout pout fish book. It teaches a terrible lesson. It bizarrely mishandles both consent and depression. Similarly bad: the rainbow fish.
I think you may have inadvertently misled readers in a different way. I feel misled after not catching the errors myself, assuming it was broadly correct, and then coming across this observation here. Might be worth mentioning this is better but still inaccurate. Just a bit of feedback, I appreciate you are willing to show non-cherry-picked examples and are engaging with this question here.
Edit: As mentioned by @tedsanders below, the post was edited to include clarifying language such as: “Both models make clear mistakes, but GPT‑5.2 shows better comprehension of the image.”
Thanks for the feedback - I agree our text doesn't make the models' mistakes clear enough. I'll make some small edits now, though it might take a few minutes to appear.
> Sure, if you’re building a consumer product. Your HTTP client, cli utility helper, whatever library is not a consumer product. The people who will ever care about it just want to know what it does.
——
It sounds like the author doesn’t view themselves as a consumer in this relationship, that they are immune to marketing, and that what they are advocating for isn’t just another marketing tactic. I’m not sure if any of those are true.
My experience with areas that use functional names to describe things is that you end up in a sea of acronyms (the functional-based names are a mouthful!) and you end in an arguably worse situation (did you say ABDC or ADBC, those are two completely different things).
I agree. I've worked in places that discourage "cute" names and the result is often things like having to decide between using CoreMainHttp and MainHttpCore. Or worse, two things with exactly the same name, but two different APIs, with projects sometimes taking both as a dependency at the same time. Or even obsolete parts of the org chart encoded into dependency names, like "DataOrgUtils" when the "Data Org" stopped existing several reorgs ago, when our current VP was an intern and nobody else even worked here.
Without some central control of names though, even "cute" ones tend to converge on the same handful eventually: Phoenix (and other classical allusions like Plato's Cave, etc.), Keymaster/MCP (and other 80s childrens' movie references), Simpsons characters, Star {Trek,Wars} references. These are all attractors for the kind of people that tend to be in IT/SWE even if the actual namespace (all possible ASCII-expressable words) is much larger.
Exactly - the author thinks all these tools just materialized fully formed in their software ecosystem instead of surviving years of competition with other, less memorable tools. It takes many years of work, luck, and yes, marketing to get to the point where any of these tools are, and a memorable name can absolutely make the difference between support and oblivion.
I haven’t done JavaScript in a long while, is using ‘class’ not a favored way of writing JS these days? I wrote JS heavily pre-class, and never really got comfortable using it before switching my focus to other languages.
The poster you're replying to is plain wrong, using "class" is ubiquitously common in the javascript/typescript world, it's the idiomatic way to create classes, and it has better semantics than trying to use prototypes. You might compile away the class keyword for compatibility, though.
But you don't have to do either of those things. There's a third way, with functions and bare objects. I'm not sure that's what GP meant, but a lot of the JS I've written (which tends to be for the browser, mostly vanilla, and quick-and-dirty, to be fair) never touches classes or prototypes. The JSON data being produced/consumed is just a bag of fields, the operations on the document are just top-level functions, events get handled in callback closures, responses to HTTP requests get handled with promises, etc. Sprinkle in some JSDoc comments and you even get fairly workable autocomplete suggestions. Of course, the web APIs are built on prototypes/classes, so it's not like they're totally absent. But with things like data attributes, querySelector, and HTML templates, the usual needs for my own code to be OOP (or even structs-with-methods a la Go/Rust) just don't emerge that much.
Yeah, I would do a lot with plain objects, and using closures and iifes to do encapsulation and what-not. It was ugly and a bit of a pain, but once you learned how it all worked it made sense and was doable. I felt that classes were a bit of a bolt-on that violated my own internal understanding of how JavaScript worked, but by that point I was moving on to other stuff so never really got used to it.
I'm not denying the existence of class in JavaScript, but at least from what I've seen when React went to functions so did most of the JavaScript community that had moved to class based syntax, except for those who worked with Java/C# as well.
I think the real sign of this is a class where all the members are static, or pure data classes - ie, classes as a default rather than classes for things where classes make sense
I think this could be useful for the type of person that uses uses todo lists to help them tackle lots of small tasks that they intend to do immediately but somehow get distracted mid-action from and never finish (and then forget about altogether). As described in this blog post that front-paged hn some time ago:
> When I notice a micro-task like this, my instinct is not to do it, but to put it in the todo list. Then I try to do it immediately. And if I get distracted halfway through, it’s still there, in the todo list.
The problem with this approach is that recording tasks become a good amount of relative overhead compared to the 'micro-task' if it involves pulling out your phone, and pulling out your phone also introduces a potential distraction. So, having something that is single purpose and as low-friction as possible is appealing.
I'm skeptical that this is actually any better than using a smart watch that you can dictate to though.
As someone with ADHD that’s me. I don’t think this product is for me, but I have to immediately write a thing down or do it. Otherwise it’s lost. Importance is irrelevant.
Funny enough I have a pebble core 2 duo from this team. There’s a simple voice app that jots down a short note quickly on the watch, it can support 10 notes total. I love it. I only use it when I really need to throw something down immediately and I can’t clutter it up with nonsense. It also means I check it every day because it’s not daunting.
> small tasks that they intend to do immediately but somehow get distracted mid-action from and never finish (and then forget about altogether).
That’s the idea, but now it creates a secondary burden of having to act on those notes to translate them into actions.
When it’s time to process your 20 different 3-second thoughts from throughout the day, is the easily distracted person actually going to sit down and work through all 20 of them at the end of the day without also getting distracted?
In my experience, the people who accumulate a lot of micro tasks because they’re too distracted to follow up on them in the moment are the same people who abandon their todo lists after they accumulate 50 items that weren’t important enough to prioritize at the time.
If someone is taking 20 notes a day, that’s over 100 notes in a week. I’m having a hard time squaring the processing of these notes with the idea that it’s for someone who is easily distracted mid task.
> When it’s time to process your 20 different 3-second thoughts from throughout the day, is the easily distracted person actually going to sit down and work through all 20 of them at the end of the day without also getting distracted?
I think the idea is that the person would be happy to circle back and finish the first thing they started, but simply forget about it altogether, so they think they are done with tasks and go on to other ("unproductive") stuff. If they can inject the habit of always checking stuff off a list when finishing things, they'll see they never finished the first thing they started, and then take care of that.
Checking off things from the list is much more satisfactory than adding things to a list, so it makes sense to have input be as low friction as possible, while checking off can be a bit more work (pulling out a phone which has the list).
I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of this in reality. Just a thought.
reply