HN won't even moderate when people's comments are flagged to death simply because they have the wrong opinion on Iran/Israel threads, showing the threads are just being used to push a one sided narrative not serve as a place for discussion.
That is actually one of my indicators - I found significantly higher flagging and mutual acrimony about West Asian affairs during non-US hours versus US hours irrespective of bias.
What will be interesting is what happens on HN tomorrow - Sunday is the equivalent of Monday in MENA.
Additionally, tne fact it took hours for this to get flagged is worrisome for me. I have also noticed increased usage of HackerSmacker.
HN needs a hard ban on politics and much stricter off-topic controls to reduce the risk of misuse of HN. It will make HN significantly harder to use and for diamonds in the rough to arise, but will help ensure good faith discourse amongst users
Also, this isn't meant to be a slight at the HN moderating team - they are doing commendable work, but there is a deluge that is very difficult to manage (so I can only imagine how much hard work they are putting into moderating already).
The Republican policy has been to starve the beast for 40 years. They are willing to bury the country in unsustainable levels of debt in order to force their agenda for government because they can't reach their goal electorally. They care more about that goal than the financial health of the nation or what the impacts of destroying the financial health is on all of us. They would rather intentionally make us too broke to function so that we can't afford government than have us rich but with a functional government. This has been their publicly stated policy for 40 years.
The Republican party is wholly a party for the Rich and wealthy.
All other claims to the contrary are attempts to deceive people that this is not the case.
What's the point of this doomerism? Do you want people to just give up? Or are you not willing to build back institutions, and try to make them stronger? I don't understand the point of your comment other than apathy/negativity?
It's absolutely _not_ a "Doomerism" comment - it's a short, sharp, somewhat wry assessment of exactly where the US currently is on the task of undoing the damage caused by gutting longstanding institutional services.
USAID, VoA, Government overwatch, Environmental monitoring, Departmental independance, the US DoJ, et al ... have all been broken in ways that will take much longer to reverse than the time taken to break them.
See "Arrow of Time" and shattered vase examples that go back long in time.
> Do you want people to just give up?
Which people? I don't think the ones doing that damage will "just give up" - it'll take effort to vote them out, it will likely take more effort to actually remove them if they stay on trend and refuse to follow court orders and established procedures.
> Or are you not willing to build back institutions, and try to make them stronger?
Weird take, I've been backing my people and country for 60 odd years. In that time I've even backed the USofA on the odd occassion.
> I don't understand the point of your comment
Hopefully that has clarified things a little - you may still need to do some work on that on your side.
> other than apathy/negativity?
because takes such as this are way off the mark.
Still, best of luck getting the US reputation back on track - it'll take time and concerted effort.
Got it. Nothing constructive intended on your part then. Just a pointless negative unproductive internet post that Trumpers won't care about but lowers the moral of people trying to deal with the fallout of all this and get people on board to push back and figure out how to rebuild.
You can keep your empty disingenuous best of luck. You sound like the guy that tells his neighbor whose house burnt down 'man, you are fucked'. Yeah, no shit. Such insight.
Wrong on multiple counts. Way to many assumptions and zero cross cultural understanding.
> Got it.
You've said this multiple times to multiple people with little to no evidence on close reading that, in fact, you "got" anything of their positions and viewpoints.
Your PoV is projecting hard on others to the deteriment of any actual useful communication.
I am of the people that happily rebuild their neighbours house routinely.
What I have said, in short, is that reversing the damage done to the US in the past year will take more than simple reversals via court decisions.
It's an observation about the nature of the problem coupled with a hope that sufficient work be done to fix things.
If you want to do something useful, scroll back and perhaps check your own attitude in multiple posts and worry less about the perceived mote in my eye.
No need for the good luck. This thread has convinced me to just be non-political. Everyone thinks the US sucks, is too broken to fix and like you pointed out the small win I came to this thread hoping to celebrate is as you called it (in your cultures encouraging insightful way) nothing but a pyrrhic victory, and I get too attached to politics. Probably best I just become non-political. But good luck to you.
WTF troll angle would I have? I'm an anti-Trump positivity troll? huh? Trolling with 'let's beat this trash and rebuild'? That's trolling to people who want to... beat this trash and rebuild?
Nah go read my historical posting, worse than a troll, I was a believer of trying to make things better. I'm just burnt out. To be told by this individual that I need to go re-read and internalize that I'm a racist, uneducated piece of shit and that the USA in inherently irredeemable because I'm anti the negativity, and that that is somehow positive, productive talk in their culture I am misunderstanding because I'm not culturally understanding (cultural sensitivity now covers crappy British style snark/negativity/dryness)?
I'm a racist, uneducated, and troll now I guess, because I challenged the piling on and felt the US was redeemable? Fuck it. This is just coming from everywhere and has worn me down, I came this article for just a little win. I'm out. Hope you all find some perfect alliance of America sucks I hate it but also lets rebuild it people that also require everything to be perfect day one and any incremental work towards better is the same as awful and not worth it and just pyrrhic victories or whatever the logic here is.
Because of both how the senate is set up where South Dakota has 2 senators just like California, gerrymandering and to a lesser extent the Electoral College, the 40% of America who like these policies will always have outsized power.
Despite the naive optimism of liberals like Michelle Obama saying “this is not who we are”, what you are seeing now is who this country has always been.
Got it. Doomerism will fix the fact that there will always be assholes/people trying to break systems for their own gain. Or maybe doomerism will lead to rolling the dice and hoping we somehow magically get a better system where no people suck?
This is not who we have historically been. Hence why gerrymandering is an issue today, because they are doing it today. But we have to put in the work to challenge the assholes. The world will always have assholes I don't think giving up/burning it all down and hoping they then magically go away is a political philosophy. The current Republican 'dixiecrats' are an extension of their traitor ancestors that WANT to burn it all down. Seems idiotic to help them in their goal. Fuck these loser traitors I'm keeping my country.
Gerrymandering is an issue today, meaning it is a new issue, that we need to fight, today.
But I got it. You think/see America as irredeemable. I see us as constantly improving things, and don't see how a different country name/system of government would change/fix the horrible things you bring up, or make the worse elements of our society better. I have seen an America that fought to remove the cancer of slavery. That is ashamed of the internment camps. The doesn't give af about interracial marriage. And that America has been steadily winning WHEN PEOPLE FOUGHT FOR IT. But maybe you are right. Destroy the USA, change the name to 'Super Friendly Nice Perfect Land', get rid of democracy, and maybe racists will stop being racist.
Looks like you are a surgeon. You would know we have many Jewish hospitals because Jewish people weren't allowed to be doctors. So Jewish people worked around that and changed things. Our system allows for improvement. There is no indication a random new one will. I have seen videos of Muslims talking about how they won't allow Jewish doctors to treat their kids, so yes, things can go backwards. Doesn't mean we give up. We need to challenge backwards people and backwards thought, not give up because they suck.
You basically support the policy of the crappy 'dixiecrats' that run the Republican party, whose ancestors have been anti-America since they started then lost the civil war of burn it all down.
Edit2: Again, you see America as irredeemable because there are crappy people in the country and because historically people were much crappier than today. I see America as one of the best tools in history for changing things to the better. You aren't going to make me give up/think a name change/rebrand will actually change the issues you have. I think America is the best way to resolve it. How recently were Irish/English killing eachother/hating eachother. 1990s? People love to hate others. You just keep listing 'people suck' as 'America sucks' as if somehow a rebrand/name change will change your complaints. Lots of people just generally suck. We Americans work to improve that. I can see how Black people have given up on it. But I don't see how that is productive for you long term/gives you better results. Better results would be to do what Jews who wanted to be doctors did, bypass the assholes, freeze them out. That is the dixiecrats anger today, they can see they are being left behind. And you want to just give in to them because???
Thank you for responding. It's good to understand you support/promote doomerism because you think the US is just irredeemable as a nation. I always just assume it's someone frustrated with things. Interesting to hear from someone who really thinks destroying it all is a better solution and that we aren't redeemable as a nation.
Final edit I promise. Read my history and you will see I am very against the American justice system. If you look closely you will see I have fallen from the top to the bottom. In that time I have been physically abused by officers and seen how broken the justice system is. I've made friends who were amazing people who never had a chance from day 1 simply because of their race, who opened my eyes to a lot. I have my own personal reasons to hate aspects of this country, but I still think the best option is to work within the system to improve it. I still think this is not who we are. Glad you aren't racist to you daughter in law. My dad didn't pass my mom's parents whiteness test and that sucked.
So do you think that “prayer changes things” and we can “reach their hearts and minds”?
“This is not who we have historically been.”
Should I start with slavery? Japanese internment camps? Legalized segregation that my still living parents grew up in? Sundown towns that still existed until the 1990s (see Oprah visits Forsyth county)? Laws against interracial marriage? Laws “protecting the sanctity of marriage” because God forbid a same sex couple gets married? How the justice system today still statistically gives harsher penalties to minorities for the same facts? The continued demonization of foreigners and LGBT?
There were places in the south that held their first integrated prom in 2013.
If you have 10 friends and ask them where they want to eat and 6 say let’s go to this nice Mexican restaurant and the other 4 say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, you still have a shitty group of friends.
> Got it. Doomerism will fix the fact that there will always be assholes/people trying to break systems for their own gain.
I know you put a lot of effort into typing all that, but I just stopped reading at sentence #2.
Doomerism isn't about fixing things. It is about knowing when you are beaten and just give up. The Serentity Prayer says "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."
I really wanted to believe that people were better, but they just aren't. My white brother married a Chinese girl in summer of 2016. My parents were so happy for their first child to finally get married. By 2018, they told him that if he had a "mongrel" baby, they would never come to visit.
People were always this evil, they just hid it better. In 2016, they gave themselves permission to be evil in the open, and they ran with it.
So they had to hide it previously because why? Because it's not who we are (the larger we). Saying it IS who we are isn't true AND normalizes their horrible behavior, gives them permission to be awful.
Some people suck, some people will always suck. That doesn't mean we can't aspire to build on the good, to override/reduce the shitiness. That doesn't mean we label the whole irredeemable. Are you the same as them? Doesn't sound like it. And why aren't you? Because it's not who we are.
40% of people still support what’s going on. Would you want to be in a friend group where 4/10 hated you because of the color of your skin if your sexuality?
You are ignoring that who we are required these people to hide it, and to raise children that don't agree with the belief and who didn't care about race when marrying. WHO WE ARE did that, these parents didn't do that.
A system that is getting rid of hate in peoples kids so they don't carry what their parents did IS MAKING THINGS BETTER.
I was jumped and beaten at San Jose State late at night in the 90s because I was white and my friend was Mexican and we were walking around where we weren't allowed I guess. Some Black people hate whites. I don't hate Black people because X out of 10 hate whites or because I was jumped. By your logic I should I guess. That will definitely improve things and build a better society. Thanks for sharing your productive world view.
> I see America as one of the best tools in history for changing things to the better.
Ask that to the people in Iran, Iraq, the Kurds, Venezuela and most of the Muslim world or even Canada and Mexico or any foreign country do they see the world as a tool for good?
> Better results would be to do what Jews who wanted to be doctors did, bypass the assholes, freeze them out.
The government has a “monopoly on [legalized] violence”. You can’t work your way around a corrupt justice system or cops that can shoot you with “qualified immunity”.
Have I given up on America? Yes. I’m planning my exit strategy now and in fact in the country I might retire to now for two months to see what’s it like living here and we have involved ourselves with the local ex-pats community.
But while I’m still working I’m going to extract as much as possible from corporate America and keep “taking things to parking lot” and “double clicking on topics”.
> “But I got it. You think/see America as irredeemable. I see us as constantly improving things.”
So tell me how things are better today in 2026 for immigrants than they were a decade ago? Minorities? LGBT? Hell even rural White America who continues to vote against their own interests as long as they can “own the libs”, see the President abuse brown people, and bring God into the school?
> The doesn't give af about interracial marriage.
My (Black) son is engaged to a white woman. You damn sure better believe that people still care. Me personally? I love her to death.
> I have seen an America that fought to remove the cancer of slavery
Four states still officially consider “Confederate Memorial Day” a state holiday and two others combine MLK and Confederate Memorial Day.
> Like I said, you basically support the policy of the crappy 'dixiecrats' that run the Republican party, whose ancestors have been anti-America since they started then lost the civil war.
They weren’t “anti-American” at all. They fought for the America that had slavery in the constitution, and considered a black person as 3/5th of a person and that enshrined “separate but equal” into law until the 50s.
This is who America always was
> Looks like you are a surgeon. You would know we have many Jewish hospitals because Jewish people weren't allowed to be doctors. So Jewish people worked around that and changed things.
I’m a 52 year old software developer/consultant. Both of my parents went to what we now call a “historically black college” because that’s all they were allowed to go to. My mom was one of the first Black teachers allowed fo teach in a formerly “White” school.
I am not here screaming that I can get ahead in corporate America because of the color of my skin. I’ve had quite a good track record in corporate America from startups, to BigTech to now a customer facing consultant who can “add on to what Becky said” and “step back and look at things from the 1000 foot view” with the best of them and never experienced discrimination.
Good luck on your response to this kind of rhetoric- I agree with you totally.
For instance, when I read stuff such as "I have seen an America that fought to remove the cancer of slavery"... it really makes me wonder with what eyes that "fact" has been seen.
In the last couple of weeks I've been reading a lot of WEB DuBois, who lays out pretty good first-hand material histories on the facts here. Or, for instance, yesterday I read a Frederick Douglas speech about John Brown.
When I read these sources, I don't think that the folks (other than the black folks fighting to free themselves) generally were fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery"... I see folks in power who, as a last resort accepted black folks into their lines.
If you read first person accounts of these things, if you read the literal words that folks were writing at the time, it's very easy to see that the obvious tactical and strategic reasons were almost overpowered by the blatent and deep racism of the folks in power.
It's easy to watch folks who will take the word of their 6th grade "history" teacher over reading, like, 2 books of first-hand sources and trace out the litany of other blatantly false understandings of the world on about every topic.
White supremacy culture is disgustingly sticky and oozes all through out folks' brains so much so that they can't even register the water in which they swim as existing. It's even not difficult to see past it if you just, like, read folks and listen when you feel uncomfortable, but damn, folks will just accept whatever BS propaganda they were given in grade school and wonder how come all these folks out in the world dismiss their idiotic positions.
Pretty sure this goes against guidelines here. Responding to someone else's response to quote and then talk about me is straight trash, especially embedding so many labels/ pejoratives aimed at me.
I guess Robert Gould Shaw grudgingly accepted everyone I guess.
I guess elected politicians like Thaddeus Stevens grudgingly accepted everyone and didn't run on a policy of anti-slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens
I didn't write anything ignorant. Your personal feelings and interpretation are yours to make, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant for having the mainstream historical interpretation, or believing the United States is a redeemable nation.
I guess HN is cool with personal characters attacks like this though because I flagged them for review and they were left up. Good to know what you guys consider meeting your guidelines.
First of all, I don't know you personally. What I wrote about were historical facts.
I understand that often white-bodied folks become very triggered when folks point out that they might have a point of view informed by white supremecy culture. I have no idea what kind of body you have, but you are clearly very upset. I don't say that as a "gotcha, hah triggered ya", I say that as a person who has been often and deeply upset by this culture, and who can recognize similar patterns of hurt and harm in other folks writing. So while I have no actual idea about you or your actual state of mind or body, you read to me like a person who is very upset for reasons that have very little to do with postings on a message board.
On one hand, it's easy for me to say:
a - if you don't like being called out, don't call folks out. If you want to be hypercritical of folks, as you were doing up thread, you're gonna need a thicker skin
b - I believe that when you say "mainstream interpretation" you can pretty easily interpret that as "white", which is what I mean when I write that you specifically are operating from a position of white supremacy. You might not have noticed that in response to references to Frederick Douglass and WEB DuBois you counterpoised a couple of white "leaders", but I certainly did.
Secondly, even if I didn't just do what you're doing to other folks on this board and dismiss your writings out of hand as both based in whatever deep traumas you have around whiteness and general ignorance of the world, your political position is still quite bad.
Your position is what a lot of folks describe as "Blue MAGA", centered on the idea that the US used to be pretty dang good (if flawed) and that we need to work back towards that greatness.
To hold that position you need to ignore a whole lot of real and obvious history, and the way folks in the US have done that is to ignore the actual writings and words of non-white folks.
I am certain that you don't experience that ignorance you are maintaining as a process of de-humanizing those other people (at least until someone points that out, which can be very activating to read).
I don't expect you to be rational about these things, because being made to feel white is very traumatic to folks in white bodies.
I don't expect you to have the capacity to deconstruct your thoughts around race, either.
But if you ever are able to do that work, consider that what I'm describing is a very specific dismissal that you're doing, of a very specific historical selectiveness, and all you have to do to not do that is to read and listen.
That's not a personal attack. This isn't about your personal "character"; that's just the world, and your ignorant and (frankly) dehumanizing political position.
I'm sorry that it feels upsetting and personal to you.
Getting to a position where you can do that work of examining these things may be impossible, and you might find that it makes all the other white-bodied folks around seem quite menacing, but it's certainly work that will liberate you from the need to defend the indefensible.
Sure I'm a total mess. If you read my history I was an exec who fell out and is still rebuilding after being away from the world for a minute (and had my eyes opened/views change on race in America during that process and learning others lived experience though not even close to understanding what that lived experience was/is like).
You didn't call me out you piled on responding to someone else while using low effort/charicture making personal attacks. That's what I took issue with.
I replied to your statement:
" I don't think that the folks (other than the black folks fighting to free themselves) generally were fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery"."
With an example of a white politician who was elected by other white folks fighting "to remove the cancer of slavery" and who was then able to use his political power to sideline United States President Andrew Johnson who was trying to restore the seceded states without guarantees for freedmen, so not some obscure/irrelevant out of power white guy but someone who thwarted the US President's evil attempts. My example specifically countered what you said. Responding to what you say and giving factual examples isn't white centric. It wouldn't make sense to use non-white examples in that response.
I never said we need to work back towards greatness. I said the USA is redeemable and the best way to progress compared to the other options, and gave examples of improvement. I pointed out 'who we are' created children that didn't care about marrying outside race to awful racist parents and Michelle Obama is correct. This historically 'who we are' was directed at pre-Trump America current era America, not our entire history, with the historical reference to show improvement is possible. It's a common way to phrase it (as shown by Michelle Obama's usage), but I think threw the conversation off into something larger than the initial discussion (we need to fight against what Trump and his supporters are doing, and not normalize that they get to define 'who we are'). I'm not trying to whitewash history, I was continuing the original discussion about the Voice of America win and that we need to be positive and build on what wins we can and ham-fistedly referenced the Civil War as showing societal push to improve, and working towards something better.
You are the one who routinely has dehumanized me in this discussion, to the point of talking about me but not too me and labeling me with names/pejoratives and deciding my positions, and defining my motivations.
But you are right, I'm a mess, and I give up. Let Trump America be America now and forever I guess. You all win in your empowering the 40% and getting me as a member of the 60% out of the way.
Fuck that. South Korea constantly worked toward progress and went from generals to democracy.
America won a Civil war against traitors like the Epstein class, but we want to just give up today because democracy is hard and what, hope the new dictator class is more benevolent? When has that ever been the case?
The US is ours, Democracy is ours. That is why they constantly undermine it. Why would we give up the stronger position that is easier to win from just because they keep trying to undermine it? That makes zero sense.
It is easy to see that South Korea is much better off now as a democracy than under the generals. It is easy to see the Philippines are better off than under Marcos. What countries move away from democracy to become better?
If you look at what has been achieved versus what was achieved in the same time period in the previous Gulf wars (which had much more buildup), the military strategy so far is going better than history would have indicated and is probably way ahead of what was planned.
GWB’s Gulf “war”, one of the biggest modern blunders this country has made, being a measuring stick for the new foray in killing civilians in the Middle East, is not a great starting point for any “actually we’re doing well” narratives.
None of that changes that militarily the start of that war was considered extremely militarily successful, and this one is off to an even more successful start.
And your original response to me had nothing, at all, to do with what I originally wrote, hence me expanding on what I wrote that you responded to, not your new tangent.
Military/tactical success does not mean strategic victory, but understanding the current reality of both is worthwhile. There is plenty of other discussion here on strategic victory for you to comment on/add your insight.
So I guess we are both just talking past each other.
My man, you said "If you look at what has been achieved versus what was achieved in the same time period in the previous Gulf wars ... " - I responded directly to that, saying it was a stupid measuring stick.
If you wanted to say different things, you should have said them. What you said was bizarre and silly. Come on, now.
During the first 2 weeks of the Gulf War we lost 12 aircraft to enemy fire. 8 to Iraqi SAMs, 3 Iraqi AAA, and 1 lost in air combat (an F/A-18C Hornet shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25). Losses resulted in 19 deaths and 10 POWs. We had a 70% interception rate on Iraq's ballistic missiles versus 90% on Iran's. We were not able to find/stop Iraq's launchers during the entire war, meanwhile we have footage of eliminating some of Iran's.
We now have drones allowing us to do lots of recon without risk to our planes. Last I know we've lost 14 drones. In Iraq that would have been 14 piloted jets. This allows us to do more/more risky recon, and at a higher operational tempo as they can be in the air longer, don't have pilot fatigue, etc.
We have removed the top government officials, and continue to remove high value targets. Today Ali Larijani, one of the orchestrators for the mass killing of Iranian protestors, was killed along with Basij cheif Gholamreza Soleimani who bragged about personally beating protestors and whose forces use rape against women routinely, along with Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Militarily we have been extremely successful in our objectives. How that translates politically in Iran is unknown. But militarily it can't be denied. The start of the Iraq war is unilaterally considered militarily successful, and this war so far is wildly more successful than that was.
You are talking about political success, and we won't know how that goes until the final outcome, but if we are successful we may never know (if we stopped a nuclear program that would have happened, how do we know we did?).
Currently we can look at military success, and it's pretty easy to see militarily we are meeting our goals.
It reads like military analysis of a military action. Strategic and tactical/military success are not the same thing, but both are worthwhile discussions to understand events. You seem to want to comingle the two but it'd probably be more productive for you to discuss your proffered topic of strategic success in one of the many threads here related to that.
How so, will Iran be less likely to send rockets and drones at their enemies? Or will they ramp up as soon as they are able? They might be okay with it taking days, weeks, months or even years to rebuild and redeploy their munitions. Has the oppressive regime changed over, or are they more angry than ever for yet another violation of their sovereignty? Iran contains one of the longest running civilizations on earth, you seem to be assuming a lot after ~3 weeks, especially since the U.S. and Israeli sides are dishonest in their proclamations of accomplishment.
Thinking about it from a first principles pov, the regime lost many of its key people, officers, and a lot of infrastructure and resources.
This 100% had some effect on its ability to function. The question is what effect.
Since it is a religious ideological movement, it has very strong cohesion, so its not going to break apart, demoralize or change its core principles.
It will also maintain the support of the highly religious Shias, however,while millions, they are a minority in Iran.
What its probably going to lose is its logistical capabilities, and its ability to exercise power and to make decisions in the periphery.
So it might still hold Tehran and places where it is strong, but Iran is a huge country, with an enormous population and mountainous geography. Places farther from the center might slip out of the regime's control. And it will need to work much harder to maintain the same level of control that it had before the war in Tehran and large cities.
This means that when the dust settles it will be either challenged by oppositional forces, or be forced to make concessions to gain back authority.
If it will try to massacre itself back to power, there will be a civil war.
When I worked at a public company I was told to expect 80% max productivity from my people. If my team routinely entered more time than that against capitalizable projects I would get called out and have to explain how that could be true.
What you are talking about is people being people and should already be accounted for. If you need to track untracked chunks and minutes something is very wrong, and it is either your management of your people or that you work at a zombie company that can't afford enough workers and is only surviving on unrealistic labor expectations.
Every time these sorts of articles get posted people that express a differing opinion from the standard get flagged (making it so you can't read their post at all) pretty quickly making it seem more like the intention isn't to start discussion. It seems like it's gotten to the point that the people that just get flagged into oblivion stopped trying to post.
This is IMHO the most unfortunate thing about how HN has changed in the last 10 years or so. People downvote now as a form of disagreement, rather than using it as a form of collective moderation. The net result is that the popular opinions rise, while unpopular opinions tend to fall or die out.
On the plus side, it does make for an interesting barely scientific way to poll for popularity of a topic on HN. Absolutely not worth it IMHO, but it is at least a bit interesting.
IMHO showdead often surfaces a lot of interesting info. It's one of my favorite things about HN, and I love and appreciate that HN has that feature.
One example: If you want to see how bad the LLM slop commenting is, showdead is very helpful. It's not as bad as some people think, but it's certainly non-zero. On the plus side, those comments do seem to get identified and flagged/killed pretty quickly.
reply