I've never seen a user replace all their comments with
"[Yeah, if I'm just gonna be down-voted to oblivion regardless of my participation in the comments, good luck with your 'meaningful discussion'}"
making it impossible for others to read their original comments. If this now becomes a trend I feel like there may be a need to change the rules around editing.
I agree. Sometimes people replace their comment text with "[deleted]" or ".", which is already abusive when the comment has replies. But this is the worst case I've seen of someone rage-editing to gut a thread.
I've restored the penultimate content of each of the posts that they overwrote that way. There remain 5 (including the GP) which just say "Yeah, if I'm just gonna be down-voted [etc.]" but that is because they were posted that way and never actually said anything else—which is a whole other level of abuse in its own right.
@dang doesn't work - I only saw this by chance. If you want guaranteed delivery you need to email hn@ycombinator.com!
I agree that keeping the threads readable is a priority, and if we have to we'll change the rules and/or standard practices. Hopefully we won't have to though.
But wouldn't that be like some company using gpl licensed code to host a code generator for something? At least in a legal interpretation. Or is that different?
I mean, is the case you're making that you can run a SaaS business on GPL-derived code without fulfilling GPL obligations because you're not distributing a binary?
If true that would seem to invalidate the entire GPL, but even by that logic, a website (such as chatGPT) distributes javascript that runs the code, and programs like claude code also do so. Again, if you can slip the GPL's requirements through indirection like having your application go phone home to your server to go get the infringing parts, the GPL would essentially unenforceable in... most contexts
That's where the AGPL comes in. The GPL(v2) does not require eg Google or Facebook to release any of the changes they've made to the Linux kernel. That they do so is not because of a legal obligation to do so. The "to get parts" thing is the relevant detail to be very specific on. If those parts are a binary that is used, then the GPL does kick in, but for distributing source code that's possibly derived, possibly not covered by copyright, it's not been decided in a court of law yet.
Most sites are not going to implement this themselves.
I think they're in prime position to become a key broker of identity in the same way that a lot of people already log in with their meta or google account to unrelated websites.
They become very entrenched and get a ton of data that way.
As more and more people essentially lock themselves in with these identitybrokers tho I imagine it has a very stifling effect on speech tho. Imagine getting banned from those.
Reviews for sure but I think you could drop linux and just add it whenever everything is stable, I don't think Linux is that big of a gaming population( though growing, thanks deck! )
Locks you out from viewing the site for a specified duration after looking at HN for up to a specified amount of minutes.
from the FAQ:
In my profile, what is noprocrast?
It's a way to help you prevent yourself from spending too much time on HN. If you turn it on you'll only be allowed to visit the site for maxvisit minutes at a time, with gaps of minaway minutes in between. The defaults are 20 and 180, which would let you view the site for 20 minutes at a time, and then not allow you back in for 3 hours.
also, archive.org only verifies the current owner of the domain for takedowns. So if a site was hosting content, that content was archived the site then shut down and someone else acquired the domain, the new owner could request the removal of the old content.
reply