Honestly, this has to just be rage bait.
You can't honestly not understand the difference between a car being in large parking lots and not being able to see if the door is locked or not by looking at it from the outside, compared to a laptop being in your office or on your lap and 0% of the time being in a pile of 500 other laptops.
* A new daily puzzle that is the same for everyone
* iCloud sync across devices
I'd love to hear what people think and how far you can get on today’s puzzle.
--
P.S. Here are the game rules:
Goal
* Destroy colored squares on a 7×7 grid using snakes made of same-colored circles. Your score is based on how many squares you destroy.
* Clearing all 49 squares is not required, and may not always be possible.
Board Setup
* Each cell contains one square and one circle, both randomly colored.
* There are 7 colors total, with each color appearing 7 times among squares and 7 times among circles.
Energy
* Energy is a shared pool for all snakes and is initially 0 units.
* Moving a snake costs 1 energy unit, regardless of how far you move it.
* You can form a snake to gain energy and spend it to move any snake on the board.
Forming Snakes
* Link 2 or more adjacent circles of the same color (orthogonal or diagonal) to form a snake.
* A snake with n circles has n – 1 links. Forming a snake immediately adds n – 1 energy units to your energy pool.
* Squares under a newly formed snake of the same color are destroyed immediately.
Moving Snakes
* Snakes move in a worm-like fashion (both orthogonal and diagonal steps are allowed), following a continuous path of isolated circles.
* Snakes cannot move onto cells occupied by other snakes.
Moving a snake can pass over isolated circles (circles not part of a snake). When this happens, each circle you pass over is teleported to the cell the snake just vacated.
Square Destruction
* When a snake finishes its move, it destroys any squares of its color under its final positions.
* Moving a snake past a matching square without stopping over it does not destroy the square.
Ending the Game
* The game ends automatically if all 49 squares are destroyed, or you can end it manually at any time by triple-tapping anywhere.
* Your score counts toward the global leaderboard regardless of whether you clear all squares.
I strongly doubt it. My AIs can generate infinite HN comments for me. I don’t do that because it isn’t interesting. But if the day arises where it is, I want that personalized content. Not something someone else copy pasted.
(I say this as someone who finds Moltbook fascinating and push myself to use AI more in my work and day-to-day life. The fact that it’s borderline trivial to figure out which HN comments are AI generated speaks to the motivation behind this guideline.)
Perhaps not. But if it reduces the junk right now, it's a good policy for right now. I'll take it, for now. If it needs revisited, then it should be revisited when circumstances change enough to warrant that.
> AI is a great equalizer when it comes to communication in English.
Good argument for it but I think 80/20 split applies here. It is likely that 80% of the time it is used to farm for upvotes and add noise.
> And despite what people say, the way you write is very much judged as an indication of your education and intelligence.
I have come across plenty of content and online interactions in English where English was the Author's 2nd or even 3rd language and I find that putting a small disclaimer about this fact is more than enough to bypass such judgement.
Edit for amichail, since I'm rate-limited at the moment: I don't want flawless English writing. I want real ideas from real people. If I wanted flawless English writing, I'd be reading The New Yorker, not HN.
Good point. There is a difference between using AI as a translator and using AI to write comments from scratch... Maybe the HN guide lines could reflect this.
The AI would assign a score for each post/comment that looks like a vote count in the reddit UI and would be treated as a vote count when performing the various kinds of rankings that Reddit supports.
But if we ignore semantics for a moment, yours is a testable hypothesis.
> reward originality, clarity, kindness, strong evidence, or creative thinking, and to downvote low effort posts, repetition, hostility, or bad faith arguments.
However, I think there are better ways to improve contributions than taking away the ability for other humans to express explicit judgment on someone's post without also having to write something.
For instance, perhaps the UI where you add your post can do real-time evaluation and suggestions for improvement (e.g. pointing out snark, personal attacks, etc.). That gives the poster the opportunity to make a different decision of what to write.
One trap with your model worth considering is that if the AI gets things wrong (e.g. gives you a negative count because it thinks you're not kind or don't give a sufficiently substantiated rebuttal in your argument), it will be very frustrating for participants and they will blame the board, not other users (who are free to disagree).
I mean it would be rude to use a natural language that cannot be translated accurately to other languages. So why isn't it rude to use LaTeX to write documents given that LaTeX is Turing complete and cannot be translated flawlessly to other document formats?
It isn't good enough. There's far too much ambiguity and imprecision inherent in the language. Just look at how often it is that native English speakers misunderstand each other.
To make English (or any human language) suitable for use as a programming language means you need to very tightly constrain the language -- which would make it less suitable for human communications.
reply