People don't remember now, but in the old HN comments like "this is so true honestly" would have been downvoted. If a comment just agrees with the parent, people would have said that's what the upvote button is for. Adding a "I agree" comment is just noise.
Also Reddit-style humorous replies were frowned upon because they ruin serious discussion and encourage karma chasing as opposed to providing valuable insight.
With all the botting and slop going on right now on HN I'd say these once annoyances are now quite arbitrary. I'm sure it bothered you and maybe one other person at this point in time, but it's pretty damn easy to scroll past it compared to actively reading comments that you half way through realize are just LLMs.
To be honest, comment like yours were also frowned upon haha. If you think something is bad for discussion, downvote. If you think something is objectionable, flag it. And now I have made a faux pas by explaining the rule to you rather than just downvoting and moving on. Its turtles all the way down today.
> Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.
Why do people go sovereign citizen when reality doesn't work their way? Stop imagining that the way you want things to be is the way things really are.
Cops do not need a judge to authorize the seizing of evidence. Cops do not need judges to decide what evidence is. Tell me, why did you just pretend like these are real requirements? I can understand why you'd want it to be that, but you wanting it to be that doesn't change reality.
It's as if you've just learned about the Fourth Amendment but know nothing about the nuance behind it.
Your system wouldn't even work at all. Let's imagine the cops get a tip that a bald man with a blue tshirt shot a man. They patrol the streets and find a match. By your logic they should not have the ability to search the man and seize his gun as evidence until a judge issues a warrant.
uhh, are you a lawyer with knowledge about how evidence works?
its not just a word, its a specific legal term
cops definitely do need judges to say what evidence is admissible, and they really dont have thr ability to just declare anything they want as evidence and just steal it
How is that in any way equivalent? The American government/legislature doesn't force you to adopt any particular view of the 2020 election. You can say Biden won or you can say it was defrauded by dead people and Trump actually won.
You're allowed to say either one and you can train an LLM to say either one.
...have you seen the current administration being grilled by congress members?
They are actually properly unable to say "Biden won the 2020 election" because that's against Dear Leader's views. They will say anything similar like "was confirmed as...", but those exact words will NEVER come out of their mouth.
Not yet, but we're only 1,5 years into this current regime.
They've already hit Anthropic once with a big government hammer (Fable release). There's no indication they won't do it again to force the LLM to have Correct Opinions.
If you're not an English speaker, it's even more aggravating when speakers of your language replace common words with English ones to sound more sophisticated/corporate. So instead of using the native word for "knowledge", they'd use "know-how". (Of course using more common words like "knowledge" or "skill" are not good enough, you need something that sounds more sophisticated to the foreign ear, like "know-how".)
Investors want to see their investment grow. What is the conspiracy? HN also hosted a likely war criminal to talk about his experiencing killing children in gaza. You think these people have morals or ideals?
> HN also hosted a likely war criminal to talk about his experiencing killing children in gaza.
WTF? What do you mean by "hosted"?
I know it's the internet's happy place to blithely accuse others of monstrosity and then derive from that how nobody other then themselves has any "morals or ideals", but this one sticks in my craw.
There was a prominent AMA for an israeli soldier while stationed in Gaza oppressing brown minorities and blowing up their children. The world sees what Israel has done it's not an "online" thing there are real humanitarian orgs and the UN accusing Israel of genocide.
Can you share a link or any identifying words that would enable us to know exactly what you're referring to? Dang and I monitor this site throughout the day, every day, and we have no idea what you mean. If it was a "prominent AMA" that we "hosted", we would remember.
I'm not sure how it's plausible that we would (1) want to host something like what you're describing, and then (2) completely scrub it and pretend it never happened.
We don't ever delete anything from HN (except in rare cases where a user asks us to do so for privacy reasons). If we had deleted something as controversial/inflammatory as what you're claiming, it would easily be exposed; the HN API is public and many people ingest and store everything that is posted, so someone would have a record of it and could easily dig it up. That's aside from any cached copies in The Internet Archive, any screenshots of it, any tweets about it, etc. We never even consider trying to hide anything that's happened on HN, because it would so easily be exposed if we did. If something bad happens on HN, we own it and work to improve.
Edit:
The thread you must be referring to is this, in January 2024:
This comment, which appears near the bottom of the thread, is from someone identifying as an IDF soldier and sharing their perspective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39147721. That user posted 9 comments in a thread with 1401 comments. Most of the replies to them were hostile but attracted no moderator action. Some of your replies attracted user flags and comments from dang due to breaking the guidelines. This is routine moderation. The guidelines apply, regardless of the topic; otherwise there would be no point having guidelines, and we'd never be able to have discussions about any difficult topics at all.
The main topic and the overwhelming majority of comments in the thread were critical of the IDF.
Thanks and apologies for the grief. I have replied at least to the parent comment from this thread to correct myself. I mentioned it I think two previous times and I didn't realize you couldn't reply to old comments. I'll send an email
Also, the mods were heavily in the thread and flagged most of my comments calling the soldier a war criminal. I wonder how many ex-IDF have worked at ycombinator companies.
The guidelines apply regardless of the topic, and regardless of who you're replying to. There's no point having guidelines if we only apply them in cases where it's popular.
What's even worse is when you go though such PRs and your comments are handled in minutes, with replies explaining the change with perfect spelling and em dashes. At which point you ask yourself: "What am I doing here? His agent wrote the entire thing, and now I'm going through it and telling his agent what to fix. Why is he even needed?"
Or even, even worse is when you get a PR from a co-worker, you spend a lot of time explaining why that's bad idea, only for the person to say "Sorry, my openclaw/etc posted that. I'll close it." Or even the opposite, you tell a co-worker: "Hey, it was a great idea to change X." and he says "X? What is X?... Oh that must have been my agent."
that's the point where i would want to start firing people. not because i want to replace them with AI, but because if they use AI to answer without contributing their own thoughts they make themselves replaceable.
> Otherwise, the title reads like a "Curtains for Zoosha?" meme.
This is also why capitalization is important. In the title, "remarkable" refers to "Remarkable Paper Pro", a tablet. Not knowing that "Fable turned remarkable into Tom Riddle's diary" is very hard to parse.
A Remarkable tablet was the first thing I thought of, but it was still so unclear I had to click through to actually understand (more or less) what was going on.
reply