> One thing I've noticed is that people will engage in thread arson to kill submissions they don't agree with. When I see some of these low value comments, I check their comment history and often they have reasonable comments on other things.
Interesting to see that others are doing this. I started this habit because I got curious to see what bad/downvoted/dead commenters would say elsewhere and noticed this same pattern. It’s not on all of them (some accounts seem to post comments that get killed in every thread they reply on which makes me think those are troll accounts), but it happens enough that it was noticeable. Not sure how I’d describe this category of user. They aren’t trolls but they are clearly doing this purposefully.
I don’t know much about apple variety names, but if you love apples and plan to visit Aomori prefecture in Japan during apple season, I highly recommend stopping by a market or grocery. I used to live in northern Akita and there was a farmer from Aomori that would come by with freshly picked apples to sell at one of the supermarkets. They had many varieties and they all tasted amazingly sweet and unique. I have yet to find an apple anywhere close to those since moving back to the states. The most recent new variety that I tried that I liked was Kiku. It’s like a sweeter version of a Fuji apple with a very similar texture. Based on your preferences, I think this would a fun one to try.
Fair. I should have reigned in my emotions and written that first comment with a lot less conviction and not jumped to my conclusion. It’s a topic I’ve been spending a lot of time learning about and got a bit too excited when a relevant thread popped up where I could chime in.
True which is why I said anecdata. But the point is that it’s a useful signal when it’s across enough sessions where it quotes back contradictions to you. If you’re willing to burn the tokens, the first thing it does is use a tool call to search your rules to see what it quoted wasn’t there. That leads to the LLM claiming two common conclusions (sometimes after a lot of back and forth) - it’s in the harness or it’s in the model. Over the 30+ sessions where I’ve tried this, the overwhelming claim was some variant of a harness instruction. It might not be there but given the consistency and how all my rule tests have failed in the same way that others describe, it at least makes it reasonable to conclude that it’s baked in somewhere and in a way where agent rules aren’t able to strongly affect the behavior. My bet would be on the harness because the class of undesired behavior follows that of a structured response.
Relevant anecdata because I've burned many a Claude sessions on this.
If you're using Claude Code, then it's in the harness. At the close of many sessions, I would start a meta conversation over why the LLM would consistently break certain rules. What it found when debugging itself is that some of the "contradicting" rules that I had were in fact, not from my rules. Instead, the instructions from its own harness had phrases telling it to do things like that. When something contradicts, its own instructions would outweigh any custom ones you write. Every rule variant I had tested (including the one that says it overrides the harness instructions - and yes, I've actually tested all the ideas in your comment too) has ultimately been unsuccessful due to this according to the LLM.
I feel like the increased reviewing time is consistently understated. I’m just an IC, but it seems obvious to me that you cannot cut staff and achieve increased output. There literally aren’t enough eyeballs to go around reviewing code when everyone is 2-3xing their output. I spend so much more time reviewing code; reviews that are sorely needed because I regularly catch batshit insane “fixes” that work but would quickly turn the codebase into a mess (the most recent one being a multi-hundred line diff that I went and fixed in 2 lines in 15 min). Maybe I’m underthinking it but it seems obvious that you either maintain the same output with fewer staff or you gain increased output with the same staff. All the companies that are attempting to cut staff and gain increased output are chasing an impossibility and throwing away their opportunity to accelerate.
I’ve had a longstanding belief that big tech purposely over-employed because it denied resources to competitors. This gave them a velocity edge despite being big and bureaucratic. In the new AI world, denying resources doesn’t slow competitors down anymore because AI raises the productivity floor. Now that over-employment brings no competitive advantage, we’re seeing huge cuts.
Turnstile feels bad as a user. Every site that I’ve seen it long will lock up Safari hard while it’s doing whatever it’s doing. But at least I haven’t run into more than 2 refresh loops.
Same. Google Maps quality has gotten noticeably worse these past 2 years for me. It routinely tries to navigate me to making impossible turns or taking weird and sometimes more dangerous routes just to shave off a potential minute. I started using Apple Maps at the advice of a colleague and it’s given better directions. This is all local. I have no baseline comparison for using maps while on trips.
Took long enough. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see them say how invested they are in tackling this. Promoting a rule is one thing, but everything SEO related becomes a cat and mouse game. I don’t have high confidence that this will work.
Oh, so I’m not imagining this. Recently, I’ve tried to up my LLM usage to try and learn to use the tooling better. However, I’ve seen this happen with enough frequency that I’m just utterly frustrated with LLMs. Guess I should use Claude less and others more.
Does it? It only takes like 2 min for my electric kettle to boil. If I was a more avid coffee/tea drinker, I’d get one of the always heated hot water dispensers that are common in Japanese households (def one of the appliances I miss since moving back to the US). Then you never have to wait.
Dunno how long this is normally supposed to go but it took me 10+ min of actually seriously considering the fonts at each choice and the final suggestion is a font that I actively dislike. I’m curious how it’s narrowing things down because I noticed that it started to give me only serif fonts which I don’t like. But the sans serif ones that it was using to try and narrow things down had distinct characteristics that I didn’t like like very narrow stems or very narrow or wide characters. But it wasn’t doing that with serif fonts. I’m guessing it began to think I preferred serifs because of that but in reality, I wasn’t picking the lesser of two evils most of the time.
Yes, at least in my experience on flights in the USA. It’s very rare but it does happen. I was lucky one time that the person doing it sat next to me and I politely asked them to use headphones and no fuss was had.
This is quite wrong? There are some features that get blocked from being implemented because Wayland refused to define a protocol for everyone to implement. Window positioning being a recent example of how progress can get blocked for many years due to Wayland.
Fi’s customer service has long since turned to shit, but the things keeping me on it are the data sims, simple international roaming, and international calling. That trifecta is pretty hard to find a match for. Especially the data sims. But if you don’t need that, I probably wouldn’t recommend Fi. My wife had endless trouble with multiple bad sim cards and the customer service experience was just as dreadful as every other carrier.
(Don’t take this as advice. Just writing my own experience with this.)
This is the reason why I take the time to summarize all “why” decisions and implementation tradeoffs being made in my (too lengthy) PR descriptions with links, etc. I’ve gotten into the habit of using <detail/> to collapse everything because I’ve gotten feedback multiple times that no one reads my walls of text. However, I still write it (with short <summary/>s now) because I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been able to search my PRs and quickly answer mine or someone’s “why” question. I do it mostly for me because I find it invaluable as I prefer writing shit down instead of relying on my flaky memory. People are forgetful and people come and go. What doesn’t disappear is documentation tied to code commits (well… unless you nuke your repo).
IMO, the spirit of the idea is to put higher information density fields first, and let that smooth out the UX for the remaining fields as you go downwards. Yes, there will be exceptions but that only matters if you’re trying to absolve the user of all work for 100% of situations. Trying to do that is a fools errand. Invert the order and use the information gathered to make inputting the rest simpler for 80% of the users. Then make it easy for the other 20% to course correct (ex: don’t disable autofilled fields, highlight all text when tabbing to the next field, etc). I think this pattern is a good one to keep in mind, but not blindly follow, when designing the UX of a UI.
> Following additional review, Ars has determined that the story “After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name,” did not meet our standards. Ars Technica has retracted this article. Originally published on Feb 13, 2026 at 2:40PM EST and removed on Feb 13, 2026 at 4:22PM EST.
Rather than say “did not meet our standards,” I’d much prefer if they stated what was false - that they published false, AI generated quotes. Anyone who previously read the article (which realistically are the only people who would return to the article) and might want to go back to it as a reference isn’t going to have their knowledge corrected of the falsehoods that they read.
Another fascinating thing that the Reddit thread discussing the original PR pointed out is that whoever owns that AI account opened another PR (same commits) and later posted this comment: https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31138#issuecom...
> Original PR from #31132 but now with 100% more meat. Do you need me to upload a birth certificate to prove that I'm human?
It’s a bit wild to me that people are siding with the AI agent / whoever is commanding it. Combined with the LLM hallucinated reporting and all the discussion this has spawned, I think this is making out to be a great case study on the social impact of LLM tooling.
Something about the tone of the article just makes me want to write a retort / criticism instead of praising the advice. Maybe it’s because it feels like an incomplete list or that it’s too generalized but written like the author has learned it all. For example, no mention of learning when and what to do to avoid frozen pipes. Or how to fix things when it happens. Also, shoveling snow isn’t that hard if you have the right snow shoveling equipment and know a bit of physics (which in my experience, locals will gladly teach you).
AFAIK, removing Antheas from Bazzite opened the door to discussions for forming the OGC. Prior to that, Antheas had created such difficult situations that many of the member groups in the OGC did not collaborate with Bazzite because of his presence. Whether or not the OGC actually works (ex: getting patches upstreamed faster), only time will tell.
I’ll be honest and say that while I agree, I’d be one of those who’d get significantly burned financially if this were to happen. Having made significant lifestyle cuts to eventually get our foot in the door and now dealing with one of us being laid off (100% due to the current administration), devaluing housing would essentially lock us into where we currently live for the rest of our lives and prevent us from moving to a lower cost of living area near retirement (which was part of our original financial planning). Combined with the fact that our generation is unlikely to see social security as a viable pillar of support (ex: retirement age requirements increasing), I want to support the idea but I have yet to see a solution that won’t burn the population of people like myself. To support this would be to offer ourselves up as sacrifices and that is something I don’t think I could ask of someone. If someone could crack that nut and have a “soft landing” for those who are going to get screwed, then I think there’s a fighting chance that we solve this before it all becomes untenable.
(Edit: To clarify, when I hear devaluing housing, I’m interpreting that as an enormous price decrease. The impact to us is that we wouldn’t be able to sell our house for anywhere near the cost we paid for it. We didn’t buy as it as an asset but we also didn’t plan for it to become a huge loss that could have instead gone into retirement savings.)
I think it isn’t mod actions but rather the very likely fact that there is a small, but large enough group of flaggers who will act in unison to remove any such post from the front page. If you want an affirmation of the efficacy of the moderation system, what you should want is transparency into the voting behaviors of the population. If you see a heavy voting correlation between flagged posts and either a specific set of users, voting timing (these types of posts get flagged much earlier than those that lean the other way politically), or both, then there is cause for concern that the algorithm of HN’s self moderation tools is being gamed. My bet is that it’s not the mods doing anything, but rather that there is already a critical mass of flag happy users that are controlling what gets to stay on the front page. I think it would be very interesting to see a write up on this topic, but it’s highly unlikely because I think it would violate privacy and user expectations of anonymity.
This is now my favorite explanation of how I feel when people default to “just fork it”. I’ve always had trouble expressing how I think that is a symptom of a community problem. One that is endemic in many Linux communities. The next time I want to explain this, I’ll be linking to this post.
I think hitting the flagging threshold is probably the most tangible power as having enough accounts with that power will let you “suppress” certain topics. At least until a mod intervenes.
(Unless I’m misremembering. I think flagging required some level of karma. Or was that vouching?)