Eyechat

seatac76 | 268 points | 11mon ago | neal.fun

lambdaba|11mon ago

Careful doing this as there's a risk of falling in love, as per this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/style/modern-love-to-fall...

latexr|11mon ago

https://archive.ph/20240808081029/https://www.nytimes.com/20...

gloosx|11mon ago

thank you sire, I banished the authwall iframe, removed the gradient and made it scrollable only to realize the article was cut for public in the first place. I wonder how archive.ph got the full version automatically...

latexr|11mon ago

> I banished the authwall iframe, removed the gradient and made it scrollable only to realize the article was cut for public in the first place.

If your browser has a Reader Mode, that’s a faster way to get to that scenario, no DOM manipulation needed.

> I wonder how archive.ph got the full version automatically

We have speculation but not certainties.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36060891

Regardless, the fact it works is why it’s so used on HN.

jimnotgym|11mon ago

I think love has to be a state that can be worked towards. We wonder the earth (with apps) looking for that perfect person, today. But did noone fall in love in the past, when you had to make do with people from your own village?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF|11mon ago

In my case the Fear Of Missing Out is terrible.

If I lived in a village of a few hundred people I could be satisfied that my spouse was the best match I could possibly hope for, right? Say half the village is men, then a quarter is too young or too old, then there's just a handful who fall in my range of economic status and attractiveness, and I could be as happy as one could hope with any of them.

I live within reasonable driving distance of probably a literal thousand other people in my age range and of similar attractiveness to me. Whoever I stick with, someone else will be better in one way and worse in another. There might be a hundred dimensions on which to measure someone. Hence my current vacation from monogamy.

I think love, as in the feeling of limerence, obsession, desire to be with someone, desire to "get" something from somebody attractive, is easy to cultivate and always has been. I love someone who said she "falls in love with anyone who makes eye contact with her long enough". Ironically, her definition of love doesn't include texting me every month.

But love as in, doing hard marriage shit for decades until one of you outlives the other... I thought I felt that when I was first with my ex-spouse, now I believe I may be happier if I never feel that.

satvikpendem|11mon ago

Different types of love. One is the honeymoon period style love after having met the person once or a few times, the other is the richer, deeper love between beings who know each other well for decades.

GuB-42|11mon ago

It is much easier to fall in love with people you have spent a lot of time with. Same thing with friendship, and I guess rivalry too. The keyword is "propinquity".

In a small village, it is natural, less so in a busy city where you meet with a lot of people, but don't really spend time with them.

7bit|11mon ago

I skimmed the article, so maybe that's why I didn't get it. But isn't the headline misleading? They didn't fall in love and there is no indication that doing all of what they did would make someone fall in love - that otherwise wouldn't have in the first place, no?

n4r9|11mon ago

Penultimate paragraph:

> You’re probably wondering if he and I fell in love. Well, we did. Although it’s hard to credit the study entirely (it may have happened anyway), the study did give us a way into a relationship that feels deliberate. We spent weeks in the intimate space we created that night, waiting to see what it could become.

miguelxt|11mon ago

Another hit from Neal. I wonder (and envy, in a good way) where does he gets the time to work and all this wonderful little games.

thornewolf|11mon ago

there was a highly similar project to this on HN a few months ago.

his previous project (infinite craft) was one of the first things i ever heard people talk about wrt LLMs.

His skill is in execution. I think he finds inspiration from the people around him.

durumu|11mon ago

Was this the one you were thinking of? https://eieio.games/nonsense/game-12-stranger-video/

namanyayg|11mon ago

Same. Not just the time, where does he gets the ideas for these games.

Plus, his implementation in a few of them is really exhaustive and polished. Are there any "interns" helping him?

amitlevy49|11mon ago

Doesn't he do this full time?

ianbicking|11mon ago

But there's no attempt to monetize anything...

... which is part of why everything seems so polished, they each express an idea without compromise, and when he's done he can just be done.

Someone could make a pretty good museum exhibit from his site.

omoikane|11mon ago

> But there's no attempt to monetize anything...

Maybe for the pages you tried, but I see ads on these pages:

https://neal.fun/infinite-craft/ (bottom)

https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/ (right)

https://neal.fun/days-since-incident/ (bottom, near the end, above the "you may also like" section)

The last one occasionally fails to show ads due to some javascript error (visible in the console). The same error was also observed on a few other pages with the "you may also like" footer, so my guess is that some ads were supposed to be visible on many pages, but were accidentally hidden due to some configuration issue.

bemmu|11mon ago

It’s my understanding that Infinite Craft alone is probably so popular that those ads actually bring in decent revenue.

For comparison, at one point slither.io, which is another browser game (not his project) was bringing in $100k/day from one ad unit showed each time the player dies https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-slither-io-goes-viral-games-...

null0pointer|11mon ago

It boggles my mind how valuable advertising is. Who is clicking on that shit and presumably buying those products? I just cannot believe that there were actually $100k/day worth of actual ad conversions, no matter the player count. Yet the money flows so I guess people really do click on that shit and then buy that shit.

SandyTown|11mon ago

Kids love ads, and that game was full of kids.

When I say love, I mean genuinely seek them out. When I was younger, there was no internet in my house, and adverts were the opportunity to step away from the TV and do something else. But I worked as a babysitter in December a few years ago and things have certainly changed a lot.

They would turn on the TV just to watch ads to "find out what I want for Christmas" then turn it off again when the advertising finished and ask for Netflix. When playing games on an iPad or laptop, they would click every ad to open it in a new tab, meaning they could browse products after they were done playing.

The first couple of times I told the kids not to do that, and reported back to the parents after. But turns out most parents liked this behaviour...it made Christmas shopping easier, because their kids would make a list of cheaper things aimed at them, rather than all asking for expensive iPads and PlayStations.

bemmu|11mon ago

I have to agree $100k/day seems close to unbelievably high, so I had to do some napkin math. In short, it seems it may be possible.

If the avg player dies 10 times, and the ads shown had $.5 CPM, then to make a dollar you'd need only 200 players. So to make $100k/day you'd need 20M daily actives, which is very high but it was really popular around those days.

Is 20M daily actives possible? Yes, because if the average play session is 15 minutes, with that many players you'd have ~200k concurrent players. There's currently a game on Steam called "banana" where you just click on bananas, and that one has 292k concurrents. There are also several Roblox games with that many concurrents, so it checks out.