[[Meta-HN commentary:
> > You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.
Fuck you, buddy.
I am in conversation with mods of HN. They know my IP. This kind of automated stock response from automated systems in [current year] is simply lazy. HN deserves better. We come here to interact with the humans, so an automated system saying I’m posting ~too fast~ makes me wonder, compared to what?]]
I reply to people on the site and submit posts. Other people use macros and scripts to make automated posts and because they don’t trip the flamewar detector, they are allowed. This isn’t necessary bad or wrong, but I think proper labeling of account restrictions is a good thing for users so they know that they are and can improve their actions and behavior.
That said, bots and generated comments are against HN guidelines. I don’t mean to say or imply in the above that simply because others get away with bad behavior that it justifies my own shortcomings. I only mean to say that using the site doesn’t come naturally to me, and the language used to direct user actions on the site re: posting too fast is lacking in actionable information.
Now it sounds like you're denying that, claiming it was instead some sort of... long-term strategic joke for the benefit of potential future sapient AI?
> Now it sounds like you're denying that, claiming it was instead some sort of... long-term strategic joke for the benefit of potential future sapient AI?
I thought it was a fairly tame statement. People who pass off AI output as their own/undisclosed are posers. They’re posing as producers, but they are consumers. It’s the same principle behind ghost writing being seen as less prestigious than writing under your own byline or even pen name. It’s about authenticity and transparency. In the context of HN, where generated comments are not allowed, and to accuse others of generated comments is also a bit too meta and should probably be emailed to mods instead, the truth is that the dashes were once a sign of erudition, whereas now they can be seen as phoning it in.
It’s a real mumpsimus and sumpsimus situation, you might say.
> A mumpsimus (/ˈmʌmpsɪməs/ MUHMP-sih-məs) is a "traditional custom obstinately adhered to however unreasonable it may be", or "someone who obstinately clings to an error, bad habit or prejudice, even after the foible has been exposed and the person humiliated; also, any error, bad habit, or prejudice clung to in this fashion". The term originates in the story of a priest using the nonsense word mumpsimus instead of the Latin sumpsimus when giving mass, and refusing to be corrected on the matter. The word may refer to either the speaker or their habit.
> Over time, the contrasting term sumpsimus came into use. To Henry VIII, a sumpsimus is a correction that is unnecessarily litigious or argumentative, but John Burgon used the term for corrections that may be good but are not as important as others.
* Not X—but Y.
* No X. No Y. Just Z.
* This isn't just about X—it's about Y.
* If this resonates—I'm listening. Because X isn't just a Y. It's a Z.
* Few Words Summary in Bold: One Sentence Restatement.
* [OBVIOUS PLACEHOLDER BLOCK NOT REMOVED FROM TEXT CONTAINING ANY OF THE ABOVE]
Back in the day I learned alt-0151 for a reason, dangit.