Lately we've had to think deeply about exactly what has changed about Show HNs in the era of AI-generated code, and one way of thinking about it is that code-generation has basically eaten everything that used to be interesting about most Show HN posts. I.e.: What were the obstacles to making it work? What approaches did you try that didn't work? What was the breakthrough that made it work? What do you learn?
So, we need a new way of evaluating the ways in which a project may be interesting to the HN audience, and in the way project creators convey that in their post. It will take time for new conventions to emerge, but we're doing what we can to help find them.
For now, please don't post comments like this. It arguably counts as snark, a swipe, curmudgeonliness, a generic tangent, or other breaches of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you think something is unfit for HN, please email us (hn@ycombinator.com) and we'll take a look.
I have no problem with people using AI to make things, even for a Show HN. I myself use AI as does I assume almost everyone on HN nowadays.
I do have a problem with if something was made entirely with AI and the OP didn't disclose that fact. I'm not saying that this OP did that, but if they don't say either way then all I can do is make my best guess, which could be wrong.
IMO it would be useful if the description on Show HN was made mandatory so that creators can introduce their projects. The days when you can just let your work speak for itself are long gone.
I mean it's not that using compilers is bad, it's just that those who use them aren't real coders.
But yes, people generally do not review and comment on compiled code. If your source is written by AI, why is it a surprise people might be hesitant to spend their time reviewing what it produced?
Did something like this exist before, with the same level of interactivity? I certainly had not come across it. Should Show HN be exclusive to hand-crafted code that demonstrate software mastery? Where things are going, that would be a slippery slope.
I think we should be celebrating what is possible using this new generation of tools, and how the reduced barrier to entry will result in more creativity and experimentation. As for those who are asking for AI use disclosure, why stop there? Why not also ask for disclosure of the use of any libraries or templates that made implementing it a bit easier?
I would also like to add a personal perspective. Each academic and teacher has their own take on things, their own narrative which distinguishes them from the rest. And in most cases, this unique perspective has so far been expressed through a combination of spoken words, handouts, and slides.
Yet, when it came to interactive demonstrations and digital tools, we were at the mercy of wildly overpriced SaaS products, or dependent on TAs to implement some version of our vision. The homebrewed teaching aid that conveyed concepts exactly the way we wanted was simply out of reach, unless we were prepared to dedicate months of work, at the expense of other commitments.
This is no longer the case.
Yes, many of them. There have been online interactive tables of the elements since the early days of the web, and even before that they were available on DVD-ROM encyclopedias — I think Encarta had one.
Only pointing this out because it is not quite a reference source, yet [1].
—Electrician, former chemist
[1] I'll cite Wikipedia, below (the irony) #ElderMillenial
Thanks for responding well — a neat tool.
As second suggestion: this probably looks great on a cell phone, but on a 50" display you've got tons more space for additional elemental facts/tidbits. Perhaps detect monitor size, then keep simple for phones?
This could additional put the lanthomides into their correct placement (if window widened enough) [0].
[0] <https://xkcd.com/2913/>
Because of this, all published periodic tables are missing 1 chemical element.
Ignoring the artificial oganessian (of which it is not possible to make more than a few atoms that decay instantly), the column of the noble gases must have 7 noble gases that are encountered in nature: neutron (Z=0), helium (Z=2), neon (Z=10), argon (Z=18), krypton (Z=36), xenon (Z=54) and radon (Z=86).
Of these 7, the first and the last, i.e. neutron and radon are unstable and decay quickly, while the other 5 are stable.
Neutron does not enter in chemical combinations, but the same is true for the other light noble gases, helium and neon, so this does not make it distinct from the other chemical elements. Like also technetium and promethium, neutron is a chemical element that does not have any beta-stable isotope (because the beta-stable isobar with A=1 has Z=1, i.e. it is an isotope of hydrogen).
When adopting zero in that way, to be consistent you’d also have to consider “nothing” to be an isotope of neutron.
But the real answer is that chemical elements imply atoms, and atoms imply the combination of a nucleus and bound electrons. The neutron is considered a subatomic particle.
The same is true for hydrogen ionized once, helium ionized twice, lithium ionized thrice, and so on. From the point of view of chemistry, a neutron is not more subatomic than a hydrogen nucleus or any other nucleus. There is indeed a difference between the nuclei with A = 1 and the nuclei with A > 1, because the latter can be decomposed into the former at high enough temperatures, of a few tens of MeV, similarly to the decomposition of any multi-atomic molecule at high enough temperatures.
"Nothing" is not an isotope of neutron, for the same reason why it is not an isotope of sulfur or of iron, i.e. the mass number A is defined as a positive integer number and there is no reason to define it otherwise. On the other hand, the atomic number Z can be defined as an integer number if antimatter is also considered, or as a non-negative integer when applicable only to ordinary matter.
Considering neutron as a noble gas like the others simplifies certain descriptions by eliminating special cases that must be considered separately.
The noble gases can usually be ignored in chemistry, because they typically do not participate in chemical reactions, but in nuclear reactions there is nothing special about them, so the noble gases, including the neutron, participate in nuclear reactions like any other elements.
Also, i think in the timeline you should show a summary of the discovery on hovering over the element, so you don't have to click then go back.
Otherwise — nice!
Also, you can now drag the "Year" slider on the main table to see how the periodic table looked at any point in history. Undiscovered elements fade to near-invisible. Ancient elements (no known discovery date) stay visible.
- On mobile, it's quite hard to hit the X to close an element description. With my specific screen size, I always end up opening Darmstadtium.
- The Element quiz hints consistently give away the answer in the penultimate or final clue.
Other than that, fun project! Thanks for sharing
