But sometimes some innocent blog posts get criticised as if they claimed that they solved world hunger. They don't. They are often just some random thought in a rarely-read blog. Nobody intended to go convince a gang of seasoned hackers that they have undisputable wisdom.

Grab some representative data from production and keep feeding that into your migration tests. Keep updating those. Worth each minute if you care about quality.

Are we going to criticise every little innocent blog post just because somebody liked it, submitted it to HN and it got enough upvotes?

Isn't that where the test coverage has a hole?

I somehow expected the blog post to extend testing for this. A pre-populated database which is then migrated. That seems to catch a wider class of issues than parsing sql and shielding against just checking for non-null without default.

And the average european has much better tooth health than the average u.s. citizen, in my experience.

This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.)

So, this ban is arguably reducing freedoms on multiple levels.

This is "hacker news". A hacker is typically interested in how something works (under the hood).

If a hacker asks "how does this mobile phone work?" then they are not looking for "well here you press a button and then here you speak" but something about radio waves and cell towers and mobile operating systems.

> > Who is behind this

> SignalBot − built by gwillem © 2025

When I looked, this information wasn't there. Only the "buy me a coffee" link. Now it is, thanks.

Hahaha, ha ha, ha...

Maybe more accurate to say "spreading my truth".

Your self-description is "entrepreneur love for automation". Is it fair to assume that if this takes off then you are planning to introduce paid plans (perhaps with some revenue sharing with the signal folks to lift rate limits for you)?

Why is this information not present on the front page?

And why does somebody who thinks people would start using and relying on it not immediately understand that that's important information?

> I just searched for the quote and my comment shows up as top result

Welcome to the future. Isn:t it lovely?

And shame on you (as in: HN crowd) to have contributed to it so massively. You should have known better.

We know quite well how it does it. It's applying extrapolation to its lossily compressed representation. It's not magic and especially the HN crowd of technical profficient folks should stop treating it as such.

Math postulates a bunch of axioms and then studies what follows from them.

Natural science observes the world and tries to retroactively discover what laws could describe what we're seeing.

In math, the laws come first, the behavior follows from the laws. The laws are the ground truth.

In science, nature is the ground truth. The laws have to follow nature and are adjusted upon a mismatch.

(If there is a mismatch in math then you've made a mistake.)

Otherwise we'd all be writing Haskell now. Or rather we'd not be writing anything since a real compiler would still have been to hacky and not theoretically correct.

I'm writing this with both a deep admiration as well as practical repulsion of C.S. theory.

Most people I talk to about this, tech and non-tech folk have an attitude with a.mix of "you can't escape this anyway, so might as well embrace it" and "misuse scenarios you are describing are pretty far-fetched".