Presumably this sort of thing was rampant pre-internet? News outlets would _have_ to receive embargoed information so that they could publish papers on time. I believe government budgets are a good example of this happening. I think the weird shift was when online journalism started, and live reactions became the norm, no?

Or you could wait a day or two to write about it, but with initial reactions etc. added. 24-hour new cycle came into view in 80s I think?

Ya, 24 hour cable news in the late 80s.

Hype and views die off very quickly, hence advertising money has disappeared by the next day most of the time.

No, embargoed news is super common. Almost every single product announcement goes through that. Critics watch movies early, companies have access to LLM model improvements early, car manufacturers send production models early… it happens everywhere all the time.

Human rights are routinely revoked from those that impede on the rights of others. This is the premise that underpins prisons. Privacy being a human right still holds true.

From which I conclude that prisons are wrong, but also if I don't like someone I can revoke his rights and push him downstairs.

What is the morally correct approach to dealing with murderers?

In principle I’d agree usually, but I think this specific case, it’s reasonable to highlight that the “experts get value” argument doesn’t really add much to the discourse anymore. We know this and you just need to look at what’s happening with LLMs in maths to see it’s true. It doesn’t add anything to the verification point however.

While this may be a common understanding in this community, it's worth repeating so that this community can tell everyone else, as I don't think most people understand this currently.

But also, it is a post that is self promoting their personal twitter page; there should be a high threshold of doing this, and regurgitating some trite analogy should fall below the bar.

This is awesome, and exactly what I've been looking for recently.

Noticed the demo won't let me add spaces in table cells however.

> It doesn't take much to convince them that Google et al don't have their best interests in mind. They already know it and have experienced it.

I think with Apple in particular, this is the issue. Apple have largely demonstrated that they _do_ often have the users best interests in mind (or at least at some point have had) on the basis that the users are Apple’s primary customers. Yes, Apple lock down iOS functionality but this has often been to deliver innovative features. Users don’t mind that they’re in a walled garden because, they like the walled garden.

This is where Google is a different case. Google’s interests are aligned with mass data collection rather than products people love. Most Google users have experienced how this impacts them negatively at some point, usually with the degradation of their products, and constant advert spam.

Google is an example of a company that the mass majority assumes to be in the wrong. Apple often isn’t.

Most people just do not think about this as much as we do.

We understand that, as the saying goes, if you're not paying for something then you are the product.

But less technical people don't consider that, and don't have hoards of technical friends to convince them otherwise. They just think: they using the product, so they're the user, right? We know that's true but it's not the same thing as customer. Most people don't have that distinction in their head.

It's even partially true that Google does want to do things that attracts and retains users, because that's a prerequisite for selling them to advertisers. In my experience, that's an upper bound on the amount of thought most non-technical people would give it.

>if you're not paying for something then you are the product.

It seems over the last decade that if you _are_ paying, you are still the product, you're just making more money for the people selling you.

We can make an ETF out of this…

some inverse leveraged abstraction no doubt

In most circumstances, I’d absolutely agree. For Art Galleries and museums, I’m far more inclined to be lenient. It’s art. It’s okay for the api to be characteristically vibes based. Especially because the downstream use-cases probably only really care if it’s something that’s been accessed “much”.

This looks great, and I’ve bookmarked to give it a go.

Any reason you’ve opted for custom markdown formats with the @ syntax rather than using something like frontmatter?

Very conscious that this would prevent any markdown rendering in github etc.

I've answered this exact question in a previous hn comment thread a few weeks ago, maybe I should reconsider front-matter? My previous answer:

> Yeah, I did briefly consider front-matter, but ended up with inline @ tags because I thought it kept the entire document feeling like one coherent spec instead of header-data + body, front matter felt like config to me, but this is 0.0.1 so things might change :)

need both

I love this. I’ve always considered doing something similar with a traditional recsys model.

The only feature I’d love to see, is there are many posts where I’m more interested in the HN comments, rather than the articles themselves. It would be great to see this incorporated somehow.

Awesome work though. Will bookmark!

thats grand, thank you! we really want to look at both using comments as a source for preference, and applying your preferences to comments to perhaps flag/sort/filter once you are on a page. Will have to think about the user flow, and the way in which preferences differ for comments vs posts