In the US, the process of removing unjust laws generally involves violating them, so that courts have the opportunity to legislate from the bench.

Laws can be removed in the same exact way they are passed. It's just in the commit instead of adding lines, you remove them.

Correct, but in practice this is almost never done, because the way the US legislative system is set up it's almost always more convenient to have judges rewrite laws instead of legislators.

Because silent mode is for the notifications. App volume has its own dedicated buttons.

HN already has something like that -- high-karma accounts can flag comments/posts which are a poor fit for HN. It's just a blacklist, not a whitelist.

Not every post is from the website of the person who is the topic of it. It's common to have e.g. a blogpost about $thing and then a new account chimes in with "Hey, I authored $thing 10 years ago when I was working for $company, someone linked me this post. [some contributions to the topic]"

I mean, to be fair, both things can be technically true. There can be lots of interesting things being done, even while most can be low-effort garbage.

But this is just Sturgeon's Law (ninety percent of everything is crap), not an actually insightful addition to the discussion, and I very much agree it's a stale take.

That's an extremely niche use case and not even a remotely selling point for probably 99% of buyers, much less the "biggest" one.

> This is genuinely

Well, I have a good guess which of those models is your favorite.

I'm not even saying that Claude wrote this - because it still reads as human written, and it's not badly written - but it has just enough Claude voice in it that it feels like the thing where humans inevitably start talking like the people (or simulacrums thereof) that they interact with most. (Heck, you did "It's not X it's Y" twice)

...Or maybe I'm the crazy one here. I don't know. But if I'm right, it's fascinating to see this happen.

I spoke things such as "this is genuinely" for a long time before LLMs.

I am worried people will think I use LLMs in my posts. This sort of sucks.

I am also not a native English speaker, which doubly sucks in this case; while I am fluent, I not always know what sounds natural in English.

I think it's hard to say what sounds natural, and what is a stylistic flaw that is nevertheless natural to say. For instance in your comment you say

> for a long time before LLMs.

The double use of the sound "fore" (in "for" and "before") can sound jarring.

Similarly "This sort of" feels a bit off to me, though I'm not sure a could definitively say why. Maybe it's a bit of a garden-path sentence; it looks like the noun "sort" before becoming the adverb "sort of". Or maybe this is just some kind of peculiarity I've picked up and your writing is perfectly natural.

You're not crazy. I feel it might be a case of LLM-brain, a person who interacts with LLMs so much they start talking like them.

Also by the people that just work there(, man).

I mean, as dumb as it is, there is a certain musicality to hearing someone with a southern accent sardonically call it the dee-oh-dubya.

The full[1] quote is:

> “Laws are a threat made by the dominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted, and the police are basically an occupying army, you know what I mean?”

...Which is funny, but technically speaking, it's (more or less) a paraphrasing/extrapolation of the very serious political science definition of a state, “a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in a defined territory”

[1] Minus the last line, which I will allow others to discover for themselves

It's a little weird, too, because Claude definitely isn't the only one approved for use on classified systems in general; both Grok and OpenAI have models approved, at the very least.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/azuregov/azure-openai-authori...

https://x.ai/news/government