Why is this linking to a blog post of what someone said, instead of directly linking to what they said?
Regardless thanks for the tip
Just because something is popular doesn't make it bad.
and why would anyone down vote you for calling this out, like who wants to see more low effort traffic-grab posts like this?
Now check how many times he links to his blog in comments.
Actually, here, I'll do it for you: He has made 13209 comments in total, and 1422 of those contain a link to his blog[0]. An objectively ridiculous number, and anyone else would've likely been banned or at least told off for self-promotion long before reaching that number.
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
But this isn't my site and I don't get to pick the rules.
I think 7 or 8 out of 10 would be a bad look.
How many of the comments without links were in a thread that started from the links? I'd guess at least some 2 or 3 out of 10.
What about just last year? We are probably close to 7 out of 10.
It's annoying.
Perhaps not other thought leaders.
I would be curious to know:
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.
Nice way of saying grifters.
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.
A classic skit on 'Thought Leadership': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A
HN really needs a way to block or hide posts from some users.
tr.submission:has(a[href="from?site=<...>"])
{
display: none;
& + tr
{
display: none;
}
}
.comtr:has(.hnuser[href="user?id=<...>"])
{
display: none;
}
time to take a shower after writing that
does it look measurably different this way? to me it looks the same but now indented
And thanks for an example with nested CSS, I hadn't seen that outside SASS before, hadn't realised that had made its way into W3C standards :-)
(for the rest, I was able to hide in Safari using manarth comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46341604
If anyone has one that will also work for user comments I would appreciate it.
Care to elaborate? Paid by whom?
> Sponsored by: Teleport — Secure, Govern, and Operate AI at Engineering Scale. Learn more
I encourage you to look at submissions from my domain before you accuse me like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=simonwillison.net - the ones I submitted list "simonw" as the author.
I'm selective about what I submit to Hacker News. I usually only submit my long-form pieces.
In addition to long form writing I operate a link blog, which this Claw piece came from. I have no control over which of my link blog pieces are submitted by other people.
I still try to add value in each of my link posts, which I expect is why they get submitted so often: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/22/link-blog/ - in this case the value add was highlighting that this is Andrej helping coin yet another new term, something he's very good at.
Ignoring all the other stuff, isn't this just a phenomenon of Andrej being worshipped by the AI hype crowd? This entire space is becoming a deification spree, and AGI will be the final boss I guess.
"Agent" is a bad term because it's so vaguely defined that you can have a conversation with someone about agents and later realize you were both talking about entirely different things.
I'm hoping "Claw" does better on that basis because it ties to a more firm existing example and it's also not something people can "guess" the meaning of.
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).
Karpathy calling OpenClaw a claw is an act of genius level naming?
Jesus wept.
I think it's a good idea to define a name for the category of personal digital assistant agents that fit the general shape pioneered by OpenClaw. And "Claw" fits the bill.