That would be a very nice service. I think folks might rely on it for a number of reasons, including that we'll want to see how biases changed over time. What got sloppier, shillier...
ChatGPT can do it w/o draining your bank account etc. I’d agree…
But for speed only, I think it’s “your idea but worse” when the steps include something AND instructions on how to do something else. The Signal/Telegram bot will handle it E2E (maybe using a ton more tokens than a webchat but fast). If I’m not mistaken.
Over the long run, I imagine it summarizing lots of spam/slop in a way that obscures its spamminess[1]. Though what do I think, that I’ll still see red flags in text a few years from now if I stick to source material?
[1] Spent ten minutes on Nitter last week and the replies to OpenClaw threads consisted mostly of short, two sentence, lowercase summary reply tweets prepended with banal observations (‘whoa, …’). If you post that sliced bread was invented they’d fawn “it used to be you had to cut the bread yourself, but this? Game chan…”
Completely agreed - and that media exposure is a result of clickbait journos piggybacking on the AI hype crowd. It's all a quite disappointing feedback loop.
Honestly in the end, I hope you don’t change your behavior b/c you’re one of the most engaging and accessible writers in the loudest space on earth right now.
It is self-evident the spirit of no rule would intend to prohibit anything I’ve ever seen you do (across dozens and dozens of comments).
How many clicks out from HN, and much time on page on average (on his site), and much subsequent pro-social discussion on HN, did those links generate versus the average linkout here? Wouldn’t change the rules but I do suspect[0] it would repaint self-promotion as something more genuine.
You're bringing up essentially the same non-argument that dang himself used when he recently personally told off someone else for pointing out the same rule breaking behavior. It boils down to "People upvote it and comment on it so it must be good content regardless of which rules it breaks" which is a harmful way of thinking, the social media version of "laws are only for the poor".
If getting enough upvotes and replies elevates one above the rules, it should be clearly stated in said rules, but I have a feeling it never will be because it's obviously not a good look.
"What if everybody in this room decided to come together and agree with what I'm saying? Let's look at a picture of the planet again. That is a world I want to live in."
I wonder if they ever had enough of the California Attorney General on them (after people posted guides on how to seek resolution through that channel)
btw saw recommendations to use a VPN to be able to use the complaint form… overall, wonder how much Meta cost taxpayers there (maybe they make up for it?)
If somebody is "manifesting" themselves a sleep aid, I think they'd just call it meditation and everybody would more or less accept that it probably works for that individual. Maybe you'd have a few people with severe autism who start arguing on online forums about the scientific evidence behind meditation, but that's just them being them.
The placebo effect is a real, measurable mind-body response where belief & expectation can change your symptoms or how you feel. However, it does not directly alter external reality. Manifesting claims your thoughts or intentions can cause _outside events_ to happen, which has zero evidence to support it.
reply