I think you could do without the invective.

My view is specifically thus:

> "Opinions can only be seen as facts when modelled as time series data."

Opinions can never be seen as facts, timestamps or otherwise. Only facts about opinions can be seen as facts, not the opinions themselves.

"Green is good" is never a fact regardless of whether you timestamp it. "Green is good right now" is not a fact. "Green was good yesterday" is not a fact. "BugsJustFindMe thinks green is good" is a (false) fact, "BugsJustFindMe said green is good" is a (true) fact, and neither one is an opinion at any time.

> "Verifying an opinion X at time T does not entail X at time T+1."

A constraint binding timeliness specifically to opinions is misplaced and also not extremely relevant in the context of whether something is a statement of opinion or fact.

> "Verifying an opinion X at time T does not entail X at time T+1."

And verifying that my cat weighs 9.5 lbs now does not entail that he will weigh 9.5 lbs tomorrow, but "my cat weighs 9.5 lbs" is not an opinion; it's a statement of fact from measurement/observation and implies "extrapolated from the last specific check done in the usual way" unless explicitly stated otherwise because that's how language works in polite society. "I like green" is the same.

"My cat weighs 9.5 lbs" is only true within a context of a particular moment and location and measurement apparatus and understanding of cat and ownership and 9.5 and lbs.

"1+1=2" is only true within a context of what "1" and "2" and "+" and "=" mean.

And so on.

> "It's also worth mentioning that LMs are wrong in different ways from humans."

This to me only shows a poor and incomplete knowledge of humans and of wrongness and its causes. If you look at all of the humans and all of the times, you find exhibitions of all the same ways of being wrong. At best you can say that some ( ]]>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:44:35 +0000https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49022478BugsJustFindMehttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49022478https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49022478> pure opinion (I like green)

"I like green" is a statement of fact about what you like. "Green is good" would be an opinion. It's funny to me how often people mix the two.

> forms can be filtered by these classes fairly easily

Obviously not so easily. :)

Is it also post-trained to know when it's wrong about when it's wrong?

> "Every response comes with a confidence score between 0 and 1"

How confident is it in its confidence?

Please, I'm sure that what you're doing is very neat and useful, but use other language to describe it. I beg you. You can't know when you're wrong. You can only know when you're unsure or inconsistent. You can be absolutely certain and still wrong and uncertain and still correct.

> In Pretti’s case he brought a pistol to a protest (illegal in his location)

I think you should know that the claim that it was illegal for him to carry that pistol is false and is a lie being told to you to deceive you into letting them sweep his death under the rug. Minnesota's concealed carry law (Pretti had a permit) does not restrict carrying in public or at protests. You can easily look that up if you care to. They don't think you will.

> inserted himself into a detainment attempt

This is also clearly false from all of the videos. There was no detainment attempt being made at that time. What is shown in all the videos is that an agent shoved a woman backward hard (to the ground) trying to get her to leave, not that they were trying to detain her. The woman was not part of any detainment attempt at that time. At that point she was merely a common victim of assault.

> and struggled with officers

Is that before or after he was being beaten while his hands were pinned down?

> He may not have fired the shot that startled the officers surrounding him, causing them to fire

The shot you're talking about was fired by one of those same border agents. It wasn't a magic bullet that came out of nowhere.

> They say stupidity should be painful

It is indeed true that some people enjoy pretending that cruelty is wisdom, but it isn't a good way to live.

And that's even ignoring for the moment the fact that things which are obvious weapons and things which are not obvious weapons pose different fundamental risks to society and that therefore it's always a stretch to lump them into the same category.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21517-dehydra...

1) None of the animations are useful. None of the scroll gates are useful. They all get in the way. Remove them. All of them.

2) Don't make a person scroll so goddamned much. It's maddening and unnecessary.

3) Have a persistent table of contents on the side if your section headers actually matter.

4) Don't ignore Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for content readability. Your tiny low contrast text hurts my eyes.

5) Don't ignore user preference for dark text on light background.