The "nuanced" argument you're responding to at least gives a window into why LLMs all talk about this same sort of nonsense and have this same bias. This kind of thinking is absolutely rampant these days -- especially on Reddit, which makes up a large portion of the training data.
I think this is a scenario where if you have to ask, you'll never know. Perhaps, ironically, there just wasn't enough immediate stimulation for you to continue...
You can't imagine that someone working on something like this would slow down as the work neared completion? Why must a piece of software / code constantly be changing? What's your specific concern? You're making a very strong claim that the "project has stalled" without any real evidence. Furthermore, the project "stalling" makes it less... what, exactly?
Yes, I can imagine multiple reasons why an author might decide to change their pace for whatever reason. my observation was that it changed.
Based on my experience (both personal and from colleagues), when a project is not in active development, the team starts losing knowledge of the codebase along with its context. For example, something that was at your fingertips while actively working on the project would be much more difficult to recall after a year. The difficulty of maintaining or extending the project grows over time if it is not actively worked on.
‘Stalled’ = contributions become less and less frequent.
If a project has stalled, there isn’t much new happening. For a simulation like this, the sky is the limit—you can make it as accurate as possible (e.g., accounting for light pressure - esp. significant around blackhole acceleration disk, the Yarkovsky effect, etc.)
The article absolutely does not support the claim made in the title. Either the writer did an awful job of summarizing the findings, or the findings are very weak.
The paper's arguments [0] are from climatic modeling. When Venus formed, it had lots of water in its interior. If its magma oceans cooled very slowly, most of the water would have escaped into space. But if its magma oceans cooled quickly, there may have been liquid water on the surface at some point, and there would have also been lots of interior water left. This interior water wouldn't have much chance to escape, even after the surface water boiled away.
They found that there's very little hydrogen present in its volcanic gases, suggesting that it doesn't have much interior water, and that it didn't in the past, which precludes the formation of surface oceans. It's not incontrovertible proof (something we'll most likely never have), but it's still solid evidence against oceanic life.
But how can they rule out the water leaving the planet very quickly after a long time of Earth Like conditions?
It's been a while since I took a solar system geology course but IIRC Venus undergoes periodic planet wide resurfacing events that wipe out the geological record.
I'm not sure if we can tell when those events started happening. It's entirely plausible they only started happening recently (geologically speaking) which possibly would not show up in the gas analysis.
- Headline "My new car has a mysterious and undocumented switch".
No, this is not a new car. This is a used car. Finding undocumented switches in a vehicle someone else owned is very common. People modify their cars all the time. Finding an undocumented switch in a new car would be wild.
- "And that’s how the search comes to an end. After a bit of perseverance I figured out what it is."
You literally took your car to a dealership, and the mechanic told you what it was. This ENTIRE ARTICLE boils down to this statement. You did the bare minimum to investigate what it was: took the panel off and confirmed that the wires went __somewhere__.
How does this get upvoted so heavily on Hacker News?
That's one thing I'm very curious about: is there a way in english to differentiate between "(my new) car" (a used car which is new to me) and "(my) new car" (a new car which is mine)?
I have to say I agree fully and it's kind of disappointing how much chaff makes it to the HN front page. This is ostensibly an interesting article, but at second glance doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny as anything really novel... folks buying used cars for decades have been doing detective work on 3rd party aftermarket modifications that have been left in. Instead, show me a door chime that has been converted to Toto's Africa using an arduino or custom fab board with STM chip.
Seemed like it would be interesting to read, but I slammed the back button once the butterfly (wtf), blur effect, and thin grey font on a white background overwhelmed me.
Agreed. The correct text color is the one of the titles. The paragraphs are too gray, they have not enough contrast. Place a sheet of paper from a book or a magazine side to side with that page and the text on the paper will be much easier to read 99.99% of the times. Is there any irony in that? Given the subject of the post, maybe not. It's a demonstration that hundreds of years of paper typography yield a better ergonomy than 30 years of the web.
I slammed the reader-mode button, which unfortunately killed the videos.
Not having looping/procedural animations in your articles is an accessibility feature. People with ADHD simply can't read blocks of text if there's visual noise flitting about everywhere.
Design choices like these tend to negatively influence my opinion of whatever I'm about to read. That's a shame, too, because the demonstration that followed is a very rare use case for AR and AI that didn't make me roll my eyes.
