The essay makes a token gesture toward this ("privilege and power dynamics play a complex and unavoidable role"), but ultimately Marco, who is a rich straight white male unaffected by any meaningful or existential prejudice, is willing to overlook those views (which do not impact him) as things that do not matter.
The crux of this post is that even publicly stated political views like DHH's shouldn't matter.
"If I learn today that my neighbors have political views that my “side” considers unacceptable and unforgivable, [...] Should I be condemned for not publicly condemning them myself? [...] I don’t want to associate with any community that would insist on either of those. [...]
"The town coffee shop was just a coffee shop. We weren’t publicly shamed for going there because one of the owners was an ass."
That’s how HN works, I had that multiple times over the years with my own submissions. Sometimes it gets picked up quickly, sometimes not. A post can also down rank very, very fast. It depends a lot on the level of engagement and the type of engagement
Roosevelt told the Shah that he was in Iran on behalf of the American and British secret services, and that this would be confirmed by a code word the Shah would be able to hear on the BBC the next night. Churchill had arranged that the BBC would end its broadcast day by saying not 'it is now midnight' as usual, but 'it is now exactly midnight'
Another option might be that Nth pass LLM output is not as good as (N+5 months)th pass LLM output. At some point before the amount of effort involved reaches that required to do it oneself, the output will reach an acceptable quality level... or so you'd hope, if any of this business is to make any sense.
That original headline is longer than what HN accepts. What editorialized message are you accusing the shorter "Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me over Iran missile story" of inserting?
For starters, no mention of re-write option. The HN headline makes me assume pre-emptive death threats instead of escalation over dialogue to re-write.
"I will kill you if you do not do X" is still a threat to kill you. All the more so when X is a thing the person will obviously not do. Rewriting the story would destroy whatever credibility they have as a journalist, and probably is literally not even possible assuming they work for any kind of reasonable organization (hey boss, I need you to update that story I wrote so a different set of gamblers win). Also, even if they did update it, they'd probably start receiving death threats from the gamblers on the other side of the bet they just screwed over.
Honestly kind of crazy that you call such an ultimatum a "rewrite option", as if that diminishes the fact that it's a death threat in any way whatsoever.
"Offered a chance to re-write." How is it even possibly to downplay something to this degree? I suppose "I'm going to kill you if you don't wire me everything in your bank account" is not a death threat, because hey, they're offering you a chance to give them all of your money. When someone on the street holds you at knifepoint, they're just offering you a chance to give them your wallet and phone!
When someone makes an "offer" to a journalist to rewrite something in a way that the journalist believes to be untrue in exchange for dropping death threats against the journalist… that isn't a "nuance."
> You just made my point on why it's more nuanced that this author engaged…
As the article clearly explains, the author replied ("engaged") without knowing why his interlocutors were interested in the minor details of the story.
His initial interlocutor ("Aviv") seemed to be engaging in good faith: "Alternatively, if you have information that it was indeed a full missile that was not intercepted, I would be glad to be corrected."
The author was naturally interested in getting the story right, and wanted to understand what his interlocutors might know about it, how they might be misunderstanding it, or why it might be so important to them.
> … and was offered a chance to re-write.
Do you truly believe that an "offer" to rewrite a story in a way that the author believes to be inaccurate—accompanied by death threats—is an important "nuance" that must be conveyed in the headline of a posting about this?
