This is a better blurb https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44498576, your new one is a set of instructions. I think it just needs to be a little clearer, you're on the right track with the second post to focus on something more concrete but it's better to show your whole thing instead of some subthing of the thing.
The mishap is not the chatbot accidentally getting too extreme and at odds with 'Elon's centrist stuff'. The mishap is the chatbot is too obvious and inept about Musk's intent.
You can mail such questions to [email protected] or search dang's comments for the years of explainers of the things that happen with posts of that nature.
A US presidential candidate got shot and people flagged that. How would one even assess this 'rigor' without considering the things that never made it to begin with.
There was also at least one giant thread about the Grok South Africa thing.
Right, because otherwise you end up with a split discussion and people miss stuff, moderators end up having to merge them, etc. Immediate followups count as dupes (in HN's weird dupery algebra), they're better off linked in the active thread.
You just had a big Show HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44394051 so you probably want to give this a few weeks for the hivemind caches to clear (even though it's a different thing) and repost it then.
"Responsible disclosure policies" are mostly vendor exhortations to people who do a public service (finding vulnerabilities and publicly disclosing them) not to embarrass them too much. The fact they contain silly boilerplate is probably just a function of their overall silliness.
I fixed the confusing bit, thanks. I'm not persuaded by the reasoning because I don't see how the reasoning is relevant - we're talking about a specific dickish comment in a specific social place with its specific norms. These are so well understood and established the comment got flagblasted by users and moderator scolded on top of that - effectively the maximum penalty/public shaming an HN comment can get. It's not a hypothetical different context in which some kind of hypothetical value eventually comes from such comments - the bad comment and the bad subthread are concretely in front of us.
I linked it because it explains why the story is not a good HN story and it's not because of the Appleinside blogspam - to my reading, the modcomment is fairly clear about that. You can mail [email protected] if you want them to take another look at it.
The HN-meaning of 'significant new information' includes 'is it going to produce a significantly different discussion'. It's not going to produce a significantly different discussion than the one last week as far as I can tell but that's an argument you can make yourself.
There's no analogy or wall of text that makes that comment unshitty and inviting of conversation. It's not a thing one should do on HN because it trashes the place. We resolve this by striving to control our own reflexive dickishness and downvoting/flagging the egregiously dickish comments, which is exactly what happened here.