altairprime

[delayed]

There’s a missed opportunity here hidden in this drawback: while the site will likely never share downvote reasons with users (any more that it would share flag reasons with us, once those ship), the users who downvote with useless filler reasons could then be labeled as ‘bad faith voters’ by the mods (not for disagreeing but for having an absence of opinion expressed in the downvote reason) so that the ranking algorithm ignores their actions — both downs and ups. It would be an excellent form of penalty, because there’s no way for them to know if it’s applied or not without being in a (prohibited) voting ring, and it would waste dramatically more of their time for each useless downvote, and it would let us see what HN looks like when upvotes exclude those who openly disregard for the community and site’s health. That could be viewed as a win-win scenario!

People will just flag content that is compliant with the guidelines if you take away their downvote option, and flag reasons are already inbound someday. I rarely downvote and asking me to provide reasons (which would only be visible to the mods, same as flag reasons and in alignment with the ‘no accusations in public’ guidelines) would drive me to downvote more, since it would invest more weight into my opinion. Typing “This is a generic copy-paste of a rabble-rouse / talking-point that is unconnected to the post it was pasted into, and should be detached from the top thread and downweighted to the bottom of the discussion just above the blatantly-offtopic replies” is infinitely more attractive a downvote to submit than just clicking an arrow. I feel I can say with some certainty that the outcome would not be what you desire, but instead would result in a sea of downvoting that helps the mods identify and target uninteresting and bad faith participation (that often earns upvotes for also being popular or witty!) while leaving legitimate controversy alone. Though, I suppose, after a year of that, sitewide downvoting would decrease as users earn algorithmic quashes for their valuelessness. One can dream.

Has anyone repurposed the JavaScript as a frontend for Apple Music web yet? Shouldn’t take much to patch the various calls of the frontend into the API of the backend, and it’d be a lot nicer to use than most web apps.

You only submit links to your own sites, and you only contribute to your own posts’ discussions. Based on your participation history I’d have emailed the mods to have your sites banned if the algorithm hadn’t caught on yet. The anti-spam systems are working correctly here.

Either participate genuinely over time as a contributing community member — a few months of frequent, meaningful participation in discussions excluding your own in between each of your self-submissions should suffice — or expect to see your sites correctly and permanently banned.

In a prior evolution of this, if you look into the Get Rich Quick marketing copy of the early 2000s (before SEO had taken over content formatting), you can see a parallel of sorts in those marketers doing human sales optimization Impact with bold and underline. It derives from research into the human response to ads from decades of print ads and centuries of printed matter prior, and I think there is a direct lineage from ‘how can we bias humans through restructuring text’ to ‘how can we bias machines through restructured text’. This isn’t to disagree, but to call out how rapidly humanity (merely twenty years!) has switched from marketing to people, to marketing to algorithms, in search of a favorable bias.

> I wish it weren't so

Same :(

Hmm, the wording for me says “technical report”, but I assume I overlooked it somewhere; either way, that’s the context the posted link was missing, thank you!

> There are a few "Nazi" hosting providers that could probably handle AO3.

I mean, you’re welcome to supply ammunition against your own argument here — ‘every hosting provider with a server-provisioning API is either capricious or Nazi-welcoming’ is a pretty damning condemnation of your own point! But .. if that’s not your intent, then I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make in support of these APIs, and pithy sentence replies aren’t doing you any favors in conveying an interpretable opinion about AO3, server provisioning APIs and checks notes Nazis(?).

Are you suggesting that AO3 is akin to Nazi content? Are you suggesting that non-skittish hosting providers are uniformly also unprincipled? Are you equating erotica and fascism? I’d prefer to hear your explanation in your own words rather than be forced to infer bad faith participation here.

Does the drop in use of R correlate with the rise of AI coding? If so, then this could instead be “AI prefers Python”, not “Python is everybody’s favorite”, and it’s quite plausible that AI would prefer Python by total volume of training material bias disregaRding R’s specific domain.

Was this reviewed by anyone outside of their employer? The logo dead center at the top at least gives away that it’s not an academic paper, and without independent review this seems like a fancy press release in LaTeX academic clothing.

Here is not the time and place. Find something nice or mean to say about Picard’s actor or don’t, but don’t be That Guy who picks a fight with someone’s eulogy over a difference of subjective opinion.

> Imagine if there was an API to rent servers within minutes or someday even seconds.

Imagine if everyone offering said API were capricious, inhumane, and uncaring about customer support, service terminations, and customer wind-down processes.

Now that you’ve pictured AWS, GCP, DigitalOcean, et al. more fully, that rules them out as available options for a long-term fanfic-centric erotica archive site that has specific and unusual legal concerns and threats to its existence incompatible with skittish Redbox-style compute providers.

Was there a particular cloud provider you were thinking of, that is not a ‘good night, sleep well, perhaps we’ll kill you in the morning’ service provider incompatible with AO3?

True, but “Ai is the best rubber duck I’ve ever had” would be a more appropriate submission title (and in line with capitalization guidance!).