If this keeps up, we're eventually going to have to ban your account. I don't want to do that since most of your comments are fine, but it's the bad ones that matter for moderation. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, that would be good.
So people can literally boil the earth with this garbage and that gets boosted on this site but you want to ban me because I dared to be snarky over it, did I get this right? Snarky is the very least we can do. I haven't even started calling them a blight on humanity.
What about leading for once and banning all LLM from the site?
I stand by everything you linked: all crypto"currencies" are scams, JavaScript is garbage, "rugged individualism" defines American people and we could call that selfishness, we can not be tolerant of other people's own definitions of words especially when those definitions deny someone's existence, AI art is stolen art, AI can only be used to generate bullshit, AI is adding to the climate suicide mankind is committing.
Go ahead and ban me if you want to, the truth hurts, I guess.
I know how powerful that argument feels, but since it can justify breaking any rule, I don't think it's convincing. Of course HN's rules are less important than the planet being boiled. What isn't?
HN mod comments are not about climate change, cryptocurrency, Javascript, individualism, AI, theft, suicide, or mankind, or truth. They're just about whether your comments are sticking to the intended spirit of the site, as expressed in the guidelines.
Huh? The fact that someone used an LLM to write part of their code doesn't make their blog post "LLM spam".
And it's complete nonsense to say the repository was "generated by an LLM". The code doesn't even touch the file contents, and it has straightforward functionality that was reviewed by a human.
"Huh" is not me being snarky here, it's because I'm unsure if I interpreted the comment correctly and I want to express that.
As far as "complete nonsense", okay, I'll keep in mind that that language is considered too rude no matter what the circumstances are. I'm not trying to respond to rule-breaking by also breaking the rules, I'm just trying to use a strong statement to argue against an attack like that.
In my experience when I think I probably understand but I'm not sure, asking for clarification and then waiting screws up the flow of conversation and half the time doesn't get an answer.
And more directly asking for clarification in a normal tone is usually just as open to negative interpretation as "Huh?" is. Sentences along the lines of "What do you mean?" can be taken quite badly!
If you interpret anything as yelling it's disruptive. But I'm not sure why that would be the interpretation. It's a short preamble to the next sentence.
This happens to me all. the. time. (with me, it's "wait" and "what?" not "huh?"). In a normal speaking conversation, it flows naturally. In writing, it doesn't come across as conversational punctuation so much as a kind of dunk. It might just be something you'll have to be vigilant about.
The problem is that the 'you' in 'if you interpret' is 'many (probably most) people reading online comments'. That's the point the mod comment is making. The effect counts rather than the intent.
You got good responses from fellow users and I don't want to pile on!
But in case it's of interest or helpful: "huh?" is one of the many markers of internet putdown, and in the weird hierarchy of these things, the punctuation matters: "Huh?" comes across as snarkier than "Huh." or "Huh," or "Huh!" would. I wouldn't have posted a mod reply for that alone, but since the comment also included the name-calling "complete nonsense", it tipped me over the threshold.
I totally believe you about your intent, but that's where things get dodgy because no one (else) has direct access to that. Hence these years-long sequences of modtalk:
