polycaster

It has not been flagged, at least not visibly. That's the point.

Regarding your question, HN is YCombinator and the article is very much in opposition to YC's business model. Paul Graham is being criticized, too.

Not my hill to die on, but this is very much at odds with the common perception of HN as a platform promoting and enabling the free exchange of ideas and highlights its utility as a VC propaganda machine.

I suppose this won't work. The mechanism behind it is probably something like an elevated sink rate.

But it would be very interesting to scan for posts with a higher than usual sink rate. Obvious violations against the rules would just be flagged or simply downvoted. If it sinks like a rock despite having good numbers, however, then it is probably extraordinary interesting.

I guess the author struck a nerve...

I find it interesting that this moved from the top position within minutes down to the second page. Below a post with 23 points in 11 hours, while this post has 102 points in 48 minutes. It has obviously been moderated down.

This is not even remotely related in any way to Gaia-X. The only connection is your marketing blitz label, which can be anything that involves public communications, really.

The code is only part of the specification. It does rarely document the actual requirements to a degree you can rely on for decision making. Sure, the code should speak for itself, but it mostly speaks about the WHYs of the implementation, not the reasoning behind the actual requirement. I found that OpenSpec actually helps a lot in this regard.

It’s obviously more complex than this, but my intuition is that the previous messages of the conversation define the playing field for the next response in the same way as thought blocks do. consequently, when the model arrives in round n and “notices” a lot of words like “plain”, “genuine” and so on in its own previous responses, then, in its pursuit of continuity, it takes this as a strong trigger that it should not be talking fiction here. If that picture is right, then trying to remove those terms would be a bad idea. At least if you intend to continue the conversation.

While the post is specific to Claude, interestingly I found the same terms and language patterns appear noticeably more often in recent Open AI conversations as well. Also in the same timeframe as for the Claude models. And I can see two reasons for that. One being that one company is training on the models of the other company, but I highly doubt that because of the apparent similar appearance without noticeable delay. And the other being that there has been some fundamental realization on how to improve and shape conversations.

I see people around here giving advice on how to reduce this vocabulary in the model output. I’m not certain this is a clever thing to do, as it appears to me, the emphasis on certain words is deliberate, and an important step towards overall quality as the words are being played back to the model in the next turn and thus supporting the model shape its own thoughts and stay on course.

For Germany it's roughly 1:11 if you go by the self-employment rate (~8% of the workforce).

Sure and Mozilla is arguably the cautionary tale here. They also started as a non-profit taking donations. AOL seeded them with $2M, Red Hat and Sun pitched in too. Within a year they had the Google search deal. By 2006, ~92% of revenue came from Google.

I don't want to dampen the positive vibes around this project in any way, in fact I'm very glad such projects exists. But it just struck me that my immediate associations with the "non-profit" label - which in this project's context is clearly being positioned against Mozilla's for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation - don't quite match reality. Even though it is indeed a non-profit, the website features a not exactly short listing of sponsors, including platinum-tier sponsor Cloudflare.

Platinum, per Ladybird's own sponsorship page, means $100,000+ per year. Money that, per the site, comes from "just people and companies who believe in an open web." Cloudflare, then.

> However, we notice – based on the social comments and international media coverage - that for many guests this period is 'the most wonderful time of the year'.

Cringe. I suspect the same people who needed social comments and international media coverage to figure out that Christmas might actually be a nice time for some people are the ones who decided that video was appropriate in content and aesthetics. Also, that quote reads a bit like a machine desperately trying to understand humans.