2 ms·

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens. Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

rpdillon 3mo ago
Yeah, I have to manually edit the URL to be xcancel instead every time. Maybe there's a grease monkey script around that handles this kind of thing. I can write one if not. Edit: going to try this out https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/531615-x-com-to-xcancel-com-redirector https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/531615-x-com-to-xcancel-co...
- WithinReason 3mo ago
  A general one that covers xcancel: https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ Use this: Redirect: https://x.* https://x.* to: https://xcancel.$1 https://xcancel.$1
shaewest 3mo ago
On the aside, where's the difference between someone posting a Twitter link and an Economist link? Both are locked behind a wall, whether it account-wall or pay-wall.
- bearjaws 3mo ago
  We can ban those too.
  - sourcecodeplz 3mo ago
    if we would ban everything that is not 100%: free, ad-free, tracker free what would we be left to read? couple of snarky remarks and maybe 2-3 paragraph of coherent text. journalism is a job! money has to come from somewhere
    - kbelder 3mo ago
      Well, restricting posts to those actually accessible isn't unreasonable. Allowing them is HN's worst policy, in my humble opinion.
- CamperBob2 3mo ago
  The Economist isn't owned by someone who cheats at video games, subverts the government, and thinks Nazi salutes are funny.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
benj111 3mo ago
Same with medium. Why?
WithinReason 3mo ago
xcancel supports articles now: https://xcancel.com/i/article/2072432348805669139 https://xcancel.com/i/article/2072432348805669139 Here is the result: https://github.com/nanocoai/nanoclaw/pull/2742 https://github.com/nanocoai/nanoclaw/pull/2742

rpdillon 3mo ago

Yeah, I have to manually edit the URL to be xcancel instead every time. Maybe there's a grease monkey script around that handles this kind of thing. I can write one if not. Edit: going to try this out https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/531615-x-com-to-xcancel-com-redirector https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/531615-x-com-to-xcancel-co...

WithinReason 3mo ago
A general one that covers xcancel: https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ https://einaregilsson.com/redirector/ Use this: Redirect: https://x.* https://x.* to: https://xcancel.$1 https://xcancel.$1

shaewest 3mo ago

On the aside, where's the difference between someone posting a Twitter link and an Economist link? Both are locked behind a wall, whether it account-wall or pay-wall.

bearjaws 3mo ago
We can ban those too.
- sourcecodeplz 3mo ago
  if we would ban everything that is not 100%: free, ad-free, tracker free what would we be left to read? couple of snarky remarks and maybe 2-3 paragraph of coherent text. journalism is a job! money has to come from somewhere
  - kbelder 3mo ago
    Well, restricting posts to those actually accessible isn't unreasonable. Allowing them is HN's worst policy, in my humble opinion.
CamperBob2 3mo ago
The Economist isn't owned by someone who cheats at video games, subverts the government, and thinks Nazi salutes are funny.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

benj111 3mo ago

Same with medium. Why?

WithinReason 3mo ago

xcancel supports articles now: https://xcancel.com/i/article/2072432348805669139 https://xcancel.com/i/article/2072432348805669139 Here is the result: https://github.com/nanocoai/nanoclaw/pull/2742 https://github.com/nanocoai/nanoclaw/pull/2742