6 ms·

> I don’t know who todsacerdoti is, but looking at their submission history, it looks like this account automatically cross-posts from other sites (maybe lobste

by Y_Y 1y ago

> I don’t know who todsacerdoti is, but looking at their submission history, it looks like this account automatically cross-posts from other sites (maybe lobsters?) That's a pretty serious allegation to make without evidence. Luckily I have some evidence right here: ~ $ python3 repost3.py todsacerdoti 78.0 seconds earlier - michael.stapelberg.ch - I like to install NixOS (declaratively) 92.0 seconds earlier - southcla.ws - Structured Errors in Go 149.0 seconds earlier - home.expurple.me - Why Use Structured Errors in Rust Applications? 101.0 seconds earlier - www.sitongpeng.com - WebSockets guarantee order – so why are my messages scram... 142.0 seconds earlier - volution.ro - PunchCard Key Backup 74.0 seconds earlier - www.youtube.com - Configure Your Git [video] 79.0 seconds earlier - download.vusec.net - Half Spectre, Full Exploit: Hardening Rowhammer Attacks w... 53567.0 seconds earlier - standardcompletions.org - Standard Completions 67.0 seconds earlier - bitfehler.srht.site - FOSS Tools for Infrastructure Testing 97.0 seconds earlier - ratfactor.com - Implementing a Forth ... I checked afterwards, most of those articles have different authors on Lobsters, so it doesn't seem to be one person just funding cool stuff and submitting to both. edit: some stats - 1 posts where HN is earlier within ten minutes 135 posts where HN is after within ten minutes Earliest instance within ten minutes: 2025-05-10T16:00:53Z Average time to repost: 140 seconds @dang - I know the anti-spam countermeasures are secret, and that there may be good reasons for cross-posting, but perhaps this might be a good thing to check for abuse of (even as a cronjob).

prettymuchnoone 1y ago
i don't think @-ing dang works, you should probably send an email to hn@ycombinator.com i think?
- Y_Y 1y ago
  I was hoping to just kiboz[0] him. For real though he does have a habit of showing up when mentioned even if there isn't an real @mention mechanism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_%22Kibo%22_Parry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_%22Kibo%22_Parry
  - layer8 1y ago
    He has also confirmed that one should send an email rather than @dang-ing.
    - Y_Y 1y ago
      I'm sure he'd prefer that, but doing so would associate my email with my username (which I'd prefer to avoid), and it was demonstrably unnecessary, at least in this case.
aspenmayer 1y ago
What's the source for repost3.py?
- Y_Y 1y ago
  Shamefully vibe-script-kiddied https://pastebin.com/baF6RKV4 https://pastebin.com/baF6RKV4
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I can’t verify this in context without an invite to lobste.rs
    - Y_Y 1y ago
      I didn't use a login, should be publicly accessible
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        Ah, good to know. I was asking on behalf of a hypothetical person that didn’t have one, if it were necessary. I appreciate that you did the work. The sad part is I think this discussion about this user came up before. This whole situation feels like fake users on digg/reddit but on HN. What a sham. It’s all the more sad when the actual creator gets scooped/buried. Instead of moving comments and discussion to the actual OP’s thread, we favor the bot user. As dang wrote in reply you, and echoing conversations I have had with him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44152290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44152290 > Of course, when the author of an article also posts it (as was the case with the OP), or when some less prolific submitter posts it, then we want that person's post to "win", but this doesn't always happen. > I wonder if we could write some code to catch this when it does happen, and then maybe we could have the best of both worlds or at least a chunk of it. Why is anyone worried about the best of both worlds, if the worst of both worlds isn’t willing to be addressed vigorously, because that’s the reality we already find ourselves in? If these posts are somehow better for HN than then alternative, then we should have some idea of what success or the ideal case looks like, or talk of what could be done to solve the negative externalities rings hollow when it still isn’t done years later, as this scripted behavior has been running for years now. Karma sharing still is DOA, and would be much less necessary to begin with if we didn’t have what are essentially karma front runners and karma police on behalf of capital (not directed at dang personally or HN specifically, but HN is backed by capital so let’s not beat around the bush). It’s a matter of priorities, and how they translate into success of the community. When individuals are favored when doing things that would be disallowed if they became a norm, at the harm of the users doing the work, on a site run by capital investors, it becomes a bit silly to steelman the case for HN, but I hope you can see I’m doing my best here. If HN is better with the posts than without, then allow users to mark their accounts or posts as bots, like on Twitter/X? Perhaps such markings should be mandatory under the guidelines? I’m sure there are other ways to balance the incentives here, and I’m sure others also have ideas. The status quo on HN apparently of allowing special good boy users to farm karma isn’t a good result when it leaves original content posted by the creator left out in the cold. Generated comments are already against HN guidelines, and generated posts ought to be as well, for the same reasons. I come to HN to see posts made by humans, not bots. I can go literally anywhere else for bot slop. This situation is untenable.
nothrabannosir 1y ago
What is the problem with this exactly? Seems like karma arbitrage, which just like regular arbitrage may feel weird but in the end it provides a service. As long as there’s no voting ring it sounds fine, no?
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Bots are bots. Bots are an incarnation of coordinated unauthentic behavior. You could instead have meat puppets typing off a script that is auto-generated and known to be unique output to the best of anyone's or anything's ability, and that wouldn't make the output any more authentic. The intent of your transmission matters, as well as the effects of it on the listener and the wider broadcast environment. Violate norms of airspace usage at your own discretion (and peril).
  - Tomte 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - Tomte 1y ago
        [flagged]
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        [flagged]
dang 1y ago
todsacerdoti is a real person, we've been in contact with him, and after mulling it over several years ago (not for several years, but several years ago!) we decided that HN is better off with these submissions than without them. He has contributed many constructive and fascinating threads to HN. In fact, IIRC I asked him to stop at one point (which he was totally fine with) and then changed my mind after looking closer, because many of these articles are so good for HN. Of course, when the author of an article also posts it (as was the case with the OP), or when some less prolific submitter posts it, then we want that person's post to "win", but this doesn't always happen. I wonder if we could write some code to catch this when it does happen, and then maybe we could have the best of both worlds or at least a chunk of it.
- Y_Y 1y ago
  Mr. Gackle, you're a credit to yourself, and a hero to the rest of us. I did something pretty lazy by taking the poster's recent submissions, seeing if they were posted to lobste.rs earlier, and how often. Here's an slightly updated version of the stochastic parrrot excrement code I gave to a sibling thread: https://pastebin.com/gFgBVkC4 https://pastebin.com/gFgBVkC4 Fwiw you're giving no credence to the theory espoused here that you don't actually read every post.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - pvg 1y ago
    They likely have other bots that remain undetected. Why is this 'likely'?
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > > They likely have other bots that remain undetected. > Why is this 'likely'? Is it more likely that a person that didn’t make the first bot also has a second that they didn’t make, or less likely? Is it more likely that a known bot user who has a working successful bot might make multiple bots in order to arrive at the working one we see, or less likely? I don’t think it’s likely that fully formed organisms would appear, but it could happen. I think evolution is more likely. Of course it’s possible that they have been detected, and the acts simply attributed to others, or allowed under the same reasoning as the first.

by Y_Y 1y ago

prettymuchnoone 1y ago

i don't think @-ing dang works, you should probably send an email to hn@ycombinator.com i think?

Y_Y 1y ago
I was hoping to just kiboz[0] him. For real though he does have a habit of showing up when mentioned even if there isn't an real @mention mechanism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_%22Kibo%22_Parry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_%22Kibo%22_Parry
- layer8 1y ago
  He has also confirmed that one should send an email rather than @dang-ing.
  - Y_Y 1y ago
    I'm sure he'd prefer that, but doing so would associate my email with my username (which I'd prefer to avoid), and it was demonstrably unnecessary, at least in this case.

aspenmayer 1y ago

What's the source for repost3.py?

Y_Y 1y ago
Shamefully vibe-script-kiddied https://pastebin.com/baF6RKV4 https://pastebin.com/baF6RKV4
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I can’t verify this in context without an invite to lobste.rs
  - Y_Y 1y ago
    I didn't use a login, should be publicly accessible
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Ah, good to know. I was asking on behalf of a hypothetical person that didn’t have one, if it were necessary. I appreciate that you did the work. The sad part is I think this discussion about this user came up before. This whole situation feels like fake users on digg/reddit but on HN. What a sham. It’s all the more sad when the actual creator gets scooped/buried. Instead of moving comments and discussion to the actual OP’s thread, we favor the bot user. As dang wrote in reply you, and echoing conversations I have had with him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44152290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44152290 > Of course, when the author of an article also posts it (as was the case with the OP), or when some less prolific submitter posts it, then we want that person's post to "win", but this doesn't always happen. > I wonder if we could write some code to catch this when it does happen, and then maybe we could have the best of both worlds or at least a chunk of it. Why is anyone worried about the best of both worlds, if the worst of both worlds isn’t willing to be addressed vigorously, because that’s the reality we already find ourselves in? If these posts are somehow better for HN than then alternative, then we should have some idea of what success or the ideal case looks like, or talk of what could be done to solve the negative externalities rings hollow when it still isn’t done years later, as this scripted behavior has been running for years now. Karma sharing still is DOA, and would be much less necessary to begin with if we didn’t have what are essentially karma front runners and karma police on behalf of capital (not directed at dang personally or HN specifically, but HN is backed by capital so let’s not beat around the bush). It’s a matter of priorities, and how they translate into success of the community. When individuals are favored when doing things that would be disallowed if they became a norm, at the harm of the users doing the work, on a site run by capital investors, it becomes a bit silly to steelman the case for HN, but I hope you can see I’m doing my best here. If HN is better with the posts than without, then allow users to mark their accounts or posts as bots, like on Twitter/X? Perhaps such markings should be mandatory under the guidelines? I’m sure there are other ways to balance the incentives here, and I’m sure others also have ideas. The status quo on HN apparently of allowing special good boy users to farm karma isn’t a good result when it leaves original content posted by the creator left out in the cold. Generated comments are already against HN guidelines, and generated posts ought to be as well, for the same reasons. I come to HN to see posts made by humans, not bots. I can go literally anywhere else for bot slop. This situation is untenable.

nothrabannosir 1y ago

What is the problem with this exactly? Seems like karma arbitrage, which just like regular arbitrage may feel weird but in the end it provides a service. As long as there’s no voting ring it sounds fine, no?

aspenmayer 1y ago
Bots are bots. Bots are an incarnation of coordinated unauthentic behavior. You could instead have meat puppets typing off a script that is auto-generated and known to be unique output to the best of anyone's or anything's ability, and that wouldn't make the output any more authentic. The intent of your transmission matters, as well as the effects of it on the listener and the wider broadcast environment. Violate norms of airspace usage at your own discretion (and peril).
- Tomte 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Tomte 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        [flagged]

dang 1y ago

todsacerdoti is a real person, we've been in contact with him, and after mulling it over several years ago (not for several years, but several years ago!) we decided that HN is better off with these submissions than without them. He has contributed many constructive and fascinating threads to HN. In fact, IIRC I asked him to stop at one point (which he was totally fine with) and then changed my mind after looking closer, because many of these articles are so good for HN. Of course, when the author of an article also posts it (as was the case with the OP), or when some less prolific submitter posts it, then we want that person's post to "win", but this doesn't always happen. I wonder if we could write some code to catch this when it does happen, and then maybe we could have the best of both worlds or at least a chunk of it.

Y_Y 1y ago
Mr. Gackle, you're a credit to yourself, and a hero to the rest of us. I did something pretty lazy by taking the poster's recent submissions, seeing if they were posted to lobste.rs earlier, and how often. Here's an slightly updated version of the stochastic parrrot excrement code I gave to a sibling thread: https://pastebin.com/gFgBVkC4 https://pastebin.com/gFgBVkC4 Fwiw you're giving no credence to the theory espoused here that you don't actually read every post.
aspenmayer 1y ago
[flagged]
- pvg 1y ago
  They likely have other bots that remain undetected. Why is this 'likely'?
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > > They likely have other bots that remain undetected. > Why is this 'likely'? Is it more likely that a person that didn’t make the first bot also has a second that they didn’t make, or less likely? Is it more likely that a known bot user who has a working successful bot might make multiple bots in order to arrive at the working one we see, or less likely? I don’t think it’s likely that fully formed organisms would appear, but it could happen. I think evolution is more likely. Of course it’s possible that they have been detected, and the acts simply attributed to others, or allowed under the same reasoning as the first.