Posted by seinvak 12/21/2025
I love HN - it's basically the only website I visit these days (aside checking mail, watching YouTube, and gardening my GitHub repositories).
I also recommend Eric Nylund's work, specifically Signal to Noise and A Signal Shattered.
Edit: Well, there you go, Children of Time had 23 mentions now that I've read down further. Disappointed to see Eric Nylund's work fade into obscurity, I rate him up with Neal Stephenson.
I also highly recommend his older books Pawn's Dream, Dry Water, and especially A Game Of Universe. They're available on Kindle and part of the Unlimited program so easy to check out.
But they are strange and great.
I haven't read the source material so I can't speak to the books, but the adaptations of 3 Body (Problem) that I've watched, both the Tencent and Netflix ones, also explore similar themes to Nylund's works. Heck, I just discovered that Liu Cixin coined the "dark forest" term, though he isn't the first to explore it.
I would still add:
Snow crash Rainbow's end
The author and book cover it is showing is for a comic book adaptation by John Carnell.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41725880
Instead of showing the author and book cover for the original text book by Douglas Adams.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11.The_Hitchhiker_s_Guid...
It's possible this idea isn't straightforward due to more or fewer total mentions but I think you could get there.
Also, "Gödel, Escher, Bach" (20 mentions) and "GEB" (7 mentions) are listed as separate books, but they are the same book.
While on the general topic, also check out the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson:
Also, a proper first edition copy is really high quality with lovely thick paper. My copy of Volume 2 on the other hand is not of the same quality, both in content and physical properties.
A well behaved reference implementation would not be of help.
yeah, I'd just look up the specific thing I want to know online
Otherwise nice to see so many of the books i read this year mentioned. Except "Mein Kampf" of course, interesting top mention there. perhaps lots of people are reading it to understand the past? I'll need to see if it's worth it, I always considered it the equivalent of drinking water from the river thames to understand victorian england better.
I had a look at the book a few years ago. After a few pages (somewhere in the middle of the book), you can see the writing style (not very good, overexcited, and that would appeal to people who look for it), but it would take longer to get a grasp on the content.
I started the year reading the first five books of the Foundation Series (book #1 on the list). A must read for anyone who hasn’t read it. I couldn’t believe how well it held up 70+ years later(!!)
I just finished the 3 Body Problem trilogy, and think it’s appropriate book #2 (The Dark Forest) is on the list as it’s probably the best — but all three are great.
I’m now ready Project Hail Mary. It’s been a long time since I read the Martian,but Andy Weir’s writing style is fast paced and practically a screenplay already. It’s obvious from the first chapter why it was picked up for a movie.
Oh thanks for the warning. I was avoiding him based on a hunch. Now I know I was right.
If anyone else is weird like me and likes books to not read like a movie screenplay, same goes for The Expanse.
I like hard SciFi with no aliens and plausible rules.
Gnome Press owned the original series and he didn’t get any royalties for them. In 1961, his current publisher Doubleday acquired them and for 20 years he told them no to writing more Foundation books. In 1981 Doubleday said they would pay him 10 times his normal rate and that is when he wrote Foundation’s Edge.
This was all printed in the front of my copy of Foundation and Earth. Titled as “The Story Behind the Foundation”.
I'm guessing you plan to read Dune next? ;) I plan to start with it during Christmas break.
There Is No Antimemetics Division freaked me the hell out. Recommended.
The real value would be in clustering books by topic and showing which ones appear together in discussions. If someone mentions "Designing Data-Intensive Applications" and "Database Internals" in the same comment, that's a stronger signal than two isolated mentions. You could build a recommendation engine from that co-occurrence data.
Also curious about the temporal aspect - tracking which books surge during certain news cycles. For example, did "Chip War" mentions spike when the AI compute restrictions hit? That contextual analysis would make this way more useful than a static ranked list. Would definitely use this if it had those features.
Surprised by how much fiction shows up though. I'd assumed HN skewed heavily technical but seeing 1984, Dune, and Foundation in the top mentions suggests the community has broader reading habits than stereotypes suggest.
One bug: looks like "The Martian" by Andy Weir is getting grouped with "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury. Might want to add some disambiguation logic for common title collisions.
How are you doing the extraction? LLM-based NER or something more traditional like regex + entity matching?
Here's a shorter one:
> “The use of imaginative fiction is to deepen your understanding of your world, and your fellow men, and your own feelings, and your destiny.”
And a longer one:
> “We read books to find out who we are. What other people, real or imaginary, do and think and feel – or have done and thought and felt; or might do and think and feel – is an essential guide to our understanding of what we ourselves are and may become… A person who had never listened to nor read a tale or myth or parable or story, would remain ignorant of his own emotional and spiritual heights and depths, would not know quite fully what it is to be human. For the story – from Rumpelstiltskin to War and Peace – is one of the basic tools invented by the mind of man, for the purpose of gaining understanding. There have been great societies that did not use the wheel, but there have been no societies that did not tell stories.”
Engaging with fantasy and scifi helps us understand ourselves and the world around us. It helps find what truly moves and inspires us. It teaches us to dream of a different, better world.
From an evolutionary and cognitive standpoint, imaginative fiction is not a privileged tool for understanding who we are. It is a byproduct of more basic adaptations. The human brain evolved as a prediction engine optimized for survival in social groups. Its primary function is to anticipate outcomes, model other agents, and reduce uncertainty well enough to reproduce. Narrative arises because the brain naturally organizes experience into causal sequences involving agents, not because stories convey deeper truths about the self.
Fiction works by hijacking the same neural systems used for social reasoning, memory, and planning. When reading a story, the mind runs simulations of social situations. This feels like insight, but feeling insight is not the same as acquiring accurate models of reality. Fantasy and science fiction are not special forms of wisdom. They are simply inputs that exaggerate certain variables, making simulations emotionally vivid rather than epistemically reliable.
Le Guin’s claim that someone without stories would be ignorant of their emotional or spiritual depths is not supported by biology. Emotions are not learned through narrative. They are innate regulatory systems shaped by natural selection. Fear, attachment, anger, desire, and joy exist prior to language and independently of story exposure. Stories can name, frame, or intensify these states, but they do not create or deepen them in any fundamental sense.
The universality of storytelling also does not imply that it is an adaptive route to understanding. Evolution does not favor truth or self knowledge. It favors fitness. Many of the most persistent stories humans tell are systematically false. Myths, religious narratives, romantic ideals, and national legends endure because they exploit cognitive biases like agency detection, pattern completion, and emotional salience. Their spread demonstrates susceptibility, not insight.
Fantasy and science fiction do not teach us to imagine better worlds. They teach us to imagine compelling ones. A narrative can feel profound while being completely disconnected from reality. Inspiration and accuracy are orthogonal. The persuasive power of stories comes from their alignment with evolved psychological vulnerabilities, not from their correspondence with truth.
So the correct technical framing is this. Stories are not tools invented to gain understanding of humanity or destiny. They are artifacts produced by brains shaped for survival under uncertainty. They can be pleasurable, motivating, or culturally stabilizing. They can sometimes illuminate patterns of behavior. But their beauty should not be confused with truth. The feeling of depth they produce is an illusion, not a discovery.
Emotions are deeply shaped by culture. Infants need emotional mirroring, co-regulation, and guidance in how to deal with and “develop” emotions. In some cultures, emotions exist not isolated in individuals but only in relationships (never “I am angry”, but “there is anger between us”). In Asian cultures, you typically soak up that you cannot feel only joy from winning but at the same time feel grief because the other lost. Infants that do not receive adequate mirroring develop long term brain damage and other pathologies. The narrative is/becomes a crucial part of how we perceive ourselves and our emotions.
Emotional regulation and differentiation emerge long before narrative competence. Infants acquire affective patterns through direct interaction and embodied feedback, not stories or symbolic self models. Cultural differences reflect how emotions are framed and expressed, not that narrative creates them. Narrative comes later as a descriptive layer that organizes experience, but it is downstream of emotion, not its cause.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
If “judge not” applied here, then no scientific criticism is permissible at all. You couldn’t say a theory is wrong, a model is flawed, or a claim is unsupported, because the critic is also imperfect. That standard would immediately end every serious discussion on HN.
Quoting scripture in response to an evolutionary and cognitive argument isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a frame shift from “is this claim true” to “are you allowed to say it.” That avoids engaging the substance entirely.
If you think the argument is wrong, point to the error. If not, appealing to moral humility doesn’t rescue a claim from being false.
Maybe mentioning it for what not to do?
Just search it: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=clean+code
All (justifiably) against clean code methodology.
Seeing 1984, Dune, Foundation as the top fiction is about as on-brand and unsurprising as it gets. I don't I could pick more expected fiction except for some popular cyberpunk and something from LOTR.
Throw in a hitchhikers guide, zen motorcycle and something from Feynman and you've covered all the bases.