This could be a lot better (potentially ground-breaking) if you allowed more fine-grained control over the book content.
Allow the user to provide an arbitrarily-detailed outline, chapter by chapter, with characters, situations, dialog, emotions,... - everything that could be an ingredient in a book "recipe".
And I wouldn't package it into a completed book just yet - instead, provide a formatted manuscript (which you already do) which is open for revisions and rewrites, before inserting it back into the pipeline for final packaging.
What you have here is a high-level concept with premature pricing options. I would withdraw it, and keep developing it into something which offers unprecedented assistance in novel writing.
Oh, and at the very least, provide an example of the finished product, so users know what they're paying for!
Well, even the antibody titre isn't foolproof (some people do not react or have their immune system later wiped).
However having no antibody titre is pretty good sign you never had it.
Not sure if there's a portable cheap blood test for it yet. Should be one, like for the active disease.
Comments should add something worthwhile to the discussion. Redundant comments ("noise") tend to be downvoted. (I didn't downvote you!)
If you meant for the comment to be read by the content poster, then something more meaningful than a single-word response would have been more appropriate.
These are the rules and practices which have kept HN lean and functional over nearly two decades.
That final line: "Disclaimer: This post was written by a human and edited for spelling, grammer by Haiku 4.5"
Yeah, GRAMMAR
For all the wonderment of the article, tripping up on a penultimate word that was supposedly checked by AI suddenly calls into question everything that went before...
Ukraine was NEUTRAL and NON-ALIGNED when russia invaded in 2014.
Putin's "NATO expansion" excuse is a barefaced LIE, and it's time more people called it out.
"From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression. In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force." (https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/partnerships-and-cooperat...)
2014 yeah, only under Yanukovych who was on Russia's side. 2005-2010, Yushchenko publicly stated that he wanted Ukraine to join NATO and was taking steps towards it, while both Bush and Obama supported expanding NATO to Ukraine.
"I welcome the decision by President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Parliament Chairman Arseny Yatsenyuk to declare Ukraine's readiness to advance a Membership Action Plan (MAP) with NATO" -Obama
Before 2005, there were already smaller steps taken, including granting NATO military access. 2005 was a disputed election with both Russia and US involved.
Why does history have to start in 2010 for a 2014 war? You're picking a Russia-backed presidency that was getting ousted before Russia attacked. There's no way they were going to stay nonaligned. That 2010 law was just a law, signed by the president, undoable by the next (and it was undone).
"Russia then occupied and annexed Crimea, and in August 2014 Russia's military invaded eastern Ukraine to support its separatist proxies. Because of this, in December 2014 Ukraine's parliament voted to seek NATO membership, and in 2018 it voted to enshrine this goal in its constitution." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations)
A full ten months elapsed before Ukraine finally decided to change its constitution. That rather destroys your argument.
Russia attacked directly after Ukraine removed their nonalignment leadership. I'm not saying Ukraine changed its constitution before the attack, just that the 2010 law was evidently possible to reverse.
Even if Russia didn't attack, Ukraine would've gone back to NATO alignment just as they were doing pre 2010. Maybe even more seeing how the entire point of the 2014 revolution was to push away from agreements with Russia, and the protest leaders were all loudly pro-NATO politicians. How could this possibly have led to nonalignment, aside from "this is a Russian talking point"?
russians (this time spelt with a lowercase 'r') have forfeited their right to exist as a nation.
Consistently throughout history, they have invaded, colonized, and genocided their neighbors.
They are doing it now, while the whole world watches. If anything, their brazenness is increasing - because they know there will never be any punishment.
When people wonder how Germans allowed their country to tip over into Nazism, modern russia is a perfect reenactment of that: we can see it happening, in real time.
And it's a blazing indictment that the rest of our "civilized" world is doing the absolute minimum to prevent history from repeating itself. Utterly SHAMEFUL.
> russians (this time spelt with a lowercase 'r') have forfeited their right to exist as a nation. Consistently throughout history, they have invaded, colonized, and genocided their neighbors.
Just to make sure we're on the right track here, has the UK (or maybe just England?) also earned that forfeit, or does it get a pass because it did all those things further away from home? (Except for that Ireland thing, which has produced some really 'funny' jokes about potatoes...)
England was duly humiliated for its many misdemeanors (but not all, for sure), and has entered a period of "political correctness", where its sins must be acknowledged and atoned for.
Nothing like this has ever been forced onto russia.
And russian crimes are on an unimaginably vast scale. Remember, it was Stalin who said: "Quantity has a quality of its own."
> Nothing like this has ever been forced onto russia.
All empires collapse sooner or later. Give it a few hundred (or dozen, or just a few) years. It's turn will come, just like it will for the US hegemony.
On the rare occasions when I'm forced to use Word, I find it an incomprehensible mess. I don't understand why users continue to tolerate it.
There is other software: LibreOffice and SoftMaker Office are close enough to be familiar to any casual user, and WordPerfect was always an excellent word processor!
> On the rare occasions when I'm forced to use Word, I find it an incomprehensible mess. I don't understand why users continue to tolerate it.
Some comments above focus on legal docs. I've provided support to practicing lawyers. They don't have time to learn new tools that maybe support the majority of what they need because people on this site know there are alternatives. They're locked into Word so that they can focus on the part of their work for which they are trained and it's not software like you or me.
Not just HR, but actual team leads and members who you can talk to and mutually evaluate each other, face to face. It's a superb event, highly recommended!
(Looks like they've introduced a new digital system too. Intriguing...)
Allow the user to provide an arbitrarily-detailed outline, chapter by chapter, with characters, situations, dialog, emotions,... - everything that could be an ingredient in a book "recipe".
And I wouldn't package it into a completed book just yet - instead, provide a formatted manuscript (which you already do) which is open for revisions and rewrites, before inserting it back into the pipeline for final packaging.
What you have here is a high-level concept with premature pricing options. I would withdraw it, and keep developing it into something which offers unprecedented assistance in novel writing.
Oh, and at the very least, provide an example of the finished product, so users know what they're paying for!
reply