This, please refrain from using standard HTTP headers in non-standard ways. Why not use something like X-Accept-Programming-Language so that the semantics of Accept-Language can remain for human language, since the docs site is going to return text in a human language as part of the response anyway.
> I think we just have different ideas of what the word "reasonable" means.
I think we just have different ideas of what the term "building blocks" means.
You cannot add (or remove) part of systemD as you wish: on a Linux system I cannot replace journald with something, and I cannot bring journald over to FreeBSD. SystemD is tightly-coupled (heck, they even borg'd in udevd, which was an independent project at one point).
Building blocks in my mind are like Legos: you can put together the thing you see on the box, but the individual (literal) blocks can be used however you wish.
What's ridiculous is the constant complaints about flagging and downvoting. It's bad form. If you think something was flagged when it shouldn't have been, vouch for it.
Seems like people who complain are unaware that anyone with a modicum of karma can flag and down vote.
Can anyone shed light on why there's a button for copying specifically for LLMs ("Copy for LLM") and why there's also an "Open in Claude" option on these articles?
Regarding the former, there's no normal Copy button so presumably this just copies the content of the article. Not sure why it needs to be clarified that its for LLMs.
Buried by the distraction of the semantics of "opt in" vs "opt out", the more interesting conflict isn't addressed in the sibling threads.
> and at the same time seemed to have lost the ability to centrally disable training on prompts for your entire organization
vs
> Vibe (Teams): Administrators can disable data training usage for the entire organization.
Is the document out of date? Or did Mistral reinstate this ability after the fact? What's the story here? Others seem to be stating they have and have had the ability to opt out of training centrally for a long time.
Don't forget the post score is a balance of up votes and down votes. This mean 2 down votes and 0 up votes registers the same (-1) as 10 down votes and 8 up votes (-1).
So there's no sense treating it like the community has forsaken you.
If the purpose of down votes is to guide discussion away from uninteresting or counterproductive paths, then it also scoops up divisive comments.
I suppose divisive comments are potentially disruptive if they are particularly flamey. But it seems like they deserve to be distinguished from more objectively negative comments. If the raw up/downs were exposed it would be interesting to experiment with this in the front end.
I'm pretty sure that downvotes from some users, perhaps those at a given karma threshold, count twice. I've seen quite a few posts that aren't otherwise attracting a lot of attention go straight from 1 to -1 more-or-less instantly, or from 3 back to 1.
It's also possible that they have experimented with fuzzing votes like Reddit does.
Either way, they don't seem inclined to disclose how it works behind the scenes. The Kremlinology of Hacker News is half the fun.
"That's not how citations work." (Dude on the interwebz, 2026)
But more seriously, this is my first time seeing that as well, and I'm not sure I like it. Citing an LLM is a little like citing Wikipedia to me, you cite the primary source the LLM is quoting directly, not the secondary source.
Far worse from my perspective is that it's not a fixed citation that it's not falsifiable. It's just a mutable, generalized source, which is stochastic in nature.
It’s the formatting and formality that bother me. Say “I looked it up with Gemini,” don’t give me some weak attempt at “proper citation” to legitimize the bare minimum effort you put in.
So much of present day feels like being back in middle school around the turn of the millenium, with classmates (and even some teachers!) new to the internet insisting that "source: internet" or "source: google" was totally fine.
reply