This is _not_ a repost from our perspective. This is a massive new chunk of features and content (993 pull requests from 256 contributors) including new hot-topic features like Virtual Geometry.
The GP comment is a bit overstated (I doubt anyone is going to ban Bevy posts) but Bevy has had plenty of recent exposure on HN and most release posts are moderated away on HN because the discussion is almost always about the project in general rather than the release, unless the changes are truly monumental.
That's your last three releases plus something about a foundation, in the last year alone. It's great it's getting traction but it's also quite a bit more than most other projects as it is.
The issue is that that refers to "Show HN" posts. If some engaged dev posts your updates, how is thst different from spamming every Opeani update? That's just organic interest, given that this is the one of the most well known Rust game engines, a mix of two topics that traditionally get attention here
Please reread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9775868. It says one year since it received significant attention, not one year except when a massive chunk of features and content is added. Dan explicitly addresses that case (“but that only applies after the "significant attention" test has been passed”).
And as you can see, the criteria is “Whether or not it contains significant new information (SNI)” which is indeed exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
Your quote omits the portion where Dan explicitly addressed that case. It needs to be one year since it received “significant attention,” and also major new development. Dan’s post could be worded more clearly, though.
(We’re pretty far in the weeds here, but as long as we’re here – for all intents and purposes, this is a show HN.)
Good point - I just linked to the first relevant explanation. pvg linked to a much longer explanation that isn’t specific to, or about, Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071428
According to this, the submission is fine: it's a major version announcement, unlike the examples given in the post, with significant changes, which rule out the “the diff between Foo 1.3.3 and the last time Foo came out is not enough to support an interestingly different discussion”
'Major' to the developers and users but the focus is on the total HN audience to whom it's neither major nor minor, it's simply another Bevy release post and there have been several of these very recently. It's a pretty straightforward release dupe, all sorts of seemingly 'major' releases from huge projects get categorized and moderated like that all the time. E.g.
Then why are you linking to a post where dang spends lots of tome explaining how the criteria is “Whether or not it contains significant new information (SNI)” if you believe this criteria isn't relevant?
Because there's absolutely zero doubt that this release matches this criteria.
I didn't say anything of the sort so I don't understand the question. The post looks like a completely routine release dupe to me and you can check that yourself by searching for your favourite projects with the search box at the bottom of the page. Both of the things you pasted say exactly the opposite of what you're implying, when read in their context
Here's "SNI":
That's one reason I'm using a silly acronym: SNI! — to convey that it's a specialized use of those words. When we say things like "this is not significant new information, so we're treating this post as a dupe", or even the gentlest, most watered-down and tiptoey version of that language, there are always people who feel aggrieved on the project's behalf, as if we're putting it down or belittling the hard work of its devs. This explanation is for those readers.
It's a made up term because it's a weird, made-up local meaning, it doesn't mean 'someone who uses the project might think it's significant'. So that's why I'm linking it, because it matches this submission very well.
> The post looks like a completely routine release dupe to me
It may looks like dupe to you, but it definitely doesn't fit the description of dupe given in the comment you linked to.
> It's a made up term because it's a weird, made-up local meaning, it doesn't mean 'someone who uses the project might think it's significant'.
Please re-read the comment you linked to, because it indeed defines what constitute SNI in a pretty clear fashion, and by this definition the aforementioned post definitely contains SNI.
Or maybe you didn't even both reading the actual post you are commenting, and because of that you fail to see how a “Bevy 0.14” post could contain SNI.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it's the most likely answer because I don't see how someone who's read the post could claim in good faith that it doesn't fit the description of SNI.
Even just the implementation of Unreal Nanite in Bevy by itself is well beyond this bar, and it's only a fraction of the diff that the post is talking about.
You've pointing a a “Show HN”, it obviously doesn't apply to other kinds of posts (or are you gonna limit OpenAI's announcement links to once a year too ? ;)
> Effectively a dupe - this just got attention 3 months ago
Wait until you realize Rust new version makes it to the front page every 6 weeks… (It's a bit less true these days because Rust release are much more boring than they used to, but it was definitely the case just a couple years back)
> Covariates included … drinking status (never drinker/past drinker/current drinker), body mass index (kg/m2), physical activity (metabolic equivalent hours per week (METs-h/week), sleep hours (hours/day)
They also break down sleep hours by cohort, with roughly 12 minutes/day less sleep among high nighttime eaters.
3. The graphs don't show reboots, even though reboots (always?) reset the baselines. Reboots happen relatively frequently due to software updates. So, even the relative scale can change without any entry on the graph.
I was pretty annoyed because it didn't seem like the company had thought through the user experience enough to even encounter these questions, let alone consider the best implementation (or at least document the flaws in whatever they're able to implement). This is the whole purpose of the product. The company means well and tries hard, but at some point good intentions matter less than the product.
These are all valid points that came up at the beginning of the year and we took this feedback very seriously.
I'm happy to let you know that we have implemented already point 1) and 2) in the latest firmware version.
You can now set the "learning gain offset" for TVOC and NOx from the default 24h to basically 1 year. As a result the monitor will behave much more like an absolute TVOC monitor as the baseline reset is much longer.
We have also implemented the automatic baseline calibration period, which you can now set to a much longer period than one week.
We are also looking into feeding the last vale back into the sensor to avoid the reboot issue but this is more tricky to implement.
By the way, if you compare the granularity that we offer now to fine tune the sensor modules, I'm not aware of any competitor offering the same feature set. But we won't stop here. We currently working on fine tuning compensation algorithms for PM.
Basically, let me use the app anonymously and get some value from it, so that (a) I want to act on something (save it, come back and continue learning, whatever), and (b) it’s earned some trust. Lead with value instead of leading with a signup form.
Do you think potential users will trust someone who posts fake comments?