881 points by bswud 536 days ago | 490 comments on HN
| Mild positive Editorial · v3.7· 2026-02-28 09:26:48
Summary Scientific Progress & Access Acknowledges
This article is a well-researched history of lab-grown diamond technology, spanning from 18th-century chemistry to 1950s industrial breakthrough. While fundamentally focused on technological achievement rather than human rights, the content acknowledges freedom of expression (documenting Cold War secrecy orders), educational access (open-access format), scientific progress as a human good, and implicitly critiques inadequate worker compensation. The overall stance is mildly positive toward human advancement through science, without advocating directly for human rights frameworks.
I have seen lab grown diamond being quite a bit cheaper than mined ones for a while now. As in ×2 to ×3 times cheaper even.
And yes, funnily it seems that the purer a diamond is (clear, few impurities etc) the higher its price/carat, until it is so pure that it means it is a lab grown diamond and not a natural one and the price drops
Over the past 10 years, there has been an explosion in cheap lab diamond and moissanite producers in China and India. 10 years ago, it was hard to find quality lab diamonds at a reasonable price, and moissanite was still reasonably expensive at $400-600/ct.
Today, given cutthroat competition and "race to the bottom" pricing strategies, lab diamonds are ubiquitous, extremely high quality, and cheap. Less than $200/ct and sometimes much less: https://detail.1688.com/offer/751071300271.html
Within 10 years of today, I expect diamonds to lose almost all of their value. Moissanites have already become as near-worthless as synthetic rubies. This is going to open up new industrial uses for those gemstones.
This is true with some qualifications. If you're interested in the kind of investment grade diamonds that a major auction house would deal with, then you're looking at heavy weights and/or fancy colors that synthetics can't reach yet. In the diamond trade the word "paragon" is sometimes reserved for flawless or near-flawless stones above 100 carats, of which there is a long list of famous examples, but the largest gem grade synthetic is still around 30 carats I believe. Vivid colors top out at much lighter than that. I guess we'll be able to outdo nature within a few decades though (as far as terrestrial diamonds go, anyway -- I seem to recall reading somewhere about the discovery of moon-sized space diamonds).
The subtle pink background, the choice of font, the minimal appearance (true to the spirit of being minimal, not just dead-ass simple), the way images are woven through, the footnotes, ...
I'm planning on buying an engagement ring very soon and my own plan (as someone who has never done this before!) is to get a good lab grown diamond but spend more money on the metal in the ring. You can make a gem stone in a lab but until we become a Kardashev II civilization we won't be making any sufficient quantity of gold in a lab. If I buy a good loose lab grown diamond will I be able to find someone who will fit it into a high quality gold ring?
> A perfectly cut, flawless lab diamond costs a fraction of the price of a mined diamond of lesser quality.
When I shopped for an engagement ring in 2012, there was a clear cohort of women who significantly valued a diamond from the ground. Fortunately, my (now) wife and I saw through the marketing gimmick, and laughed all the way to the bank.
They're cheaper but they're not cheap and that's part of the issue...
I remember looking at engagement rings about 5 years ago, my now wife is quite environmentally conscious. At the time it was like ~£1200 for a diamond one and £800 for a synthetic one.
That's a good article. The whole history is there.
The commercial side has made huge progress, too. Look up "diamond making machine" on Alibaba. You can buy a high-pressure, high temperature six sided press for about US$200,000. A chemical vapor deposition machine is about the same price.
De Beers, the diamond cartel, has an R&D operation, Element Six. They sell synthetic diamonds for lasers and other exotic applications. The technology is good enough to achieve flaw levels in the parts per billion range, and to make diamond windows for lasers 10cm across.[1]
This is way above jewelry grade.
Over on the natural diamond side, there's been a breakthrough. The industry used to break up some large diamonds during rock crushing. Now there's a industrial X-ray system which is used to examine rocks before crushing to find diamonds. It's working quite well. A 2500 carat diamond was found recently.[1][2] TOMRA, which makes high-volume sorters for everything from recyclables to rice, has a sorter for this job. This is working so well that there's now something of a glut of giant diamonds too big for jewelry.
The finishing processes of cutting and polishing have been automated. The machinery for that comes mostly from China and India.
Diamonds are now something you can buy by the kilo, in plastic bags.
I started looking into diamonds two years before I proposed to my now wife and went really down the rabbit hole of the chemistry, history, and marketing behind diamonds.
Lab-made was a no brainer, I got a flawless and huge stone for the price I would have paid for a crappy 1ct from DeBeers. My only regret is that whatever I paid for the diamond will still be way over-market in a few years but well, had to get married at some point. I guess I'll get her a golf-ball-sized diamond for our 10th anniversary.
Synthetic diamonds from "cremains" (ash from cremation) have been a thing for a while. That ash is mostly carbon with other elements. "Wear your grandma" is thankfully not a slogan. My teenager children's recent answers to "would you want this" were "ewww gross absolutely not".
I don't see demand for natural diamonds going anywhere. There's a reason that Rolex, Cartier, and other luxury brands don't use cheap, synthetic diamonds in their products.
I know a jeweler personally that sells synthetic and natural diamonds. He can spot the difference from a mile away between a synthetic and a natural diamond (synthetics look extremely pure and have no flaws). His wealthy clients buy natural diamonds. Not because it's a "better investment" but because they can.
If you can buy a knockoff Louis Vuitton for 5% of the cost of the real one, great, go for it! Most people won't be able to tell the difference (I certainly can't). But the market for authentic Louis Vuitton isn't going anywhere, and the people that can afford it will buy the real ones, and the people that can't will buy the fake ones.
As long as there's a distinction between natural and synthetic, synthetic diamonds will drop to a dollar a carat while naturals only become more of a status symbol.
EDIT: changed real to natural when referring to diamonds
When my fiancee and I got engaged last year, we bought our rings from a place that (in addition to having a robust process that allowed us to avoid having to go anywhere in person) uses lab-grown gemstones. Not only is the quality quite high and the color impressive (she picked a pink sapphire), the prices were much lower than we expected. I'm not really sure why anyone would want a "real" diamond at this point; you can get a better one for cheaper without any ethical qualms, and in my opinion the fact that we can basically assemble the gemstones we want at the molecular level is incredibly cool from an science nerd perspective.
One thing to consider is sell back value of diamonds. Which is horrible. For something that really should not wear too much, it seems the price someone is willing to pay for them after some use should be the real price.
For any aspiring inventors / engineers out there, take a good look at how Hall was treated by GE. He literally invented game-changing tech with every obstacle thrown in his way by management, and was given a 10% raise and $10 savings bond.
Had he done it on his own, he would have been extremely wealthy, being the supplier of synthetic diamonds to the world (assuming he wouldn't have faced legal challenges by former employer). He would have also been able to pursue this full time, who knows how much he could have improved the tech.
Just because the powers that be don't think its a good idea, doesn't mean it isn't (it also doesn't mean it is). And if they don't want you building it, for goodness sakes, don't just give them your amazing idea, build it so you can profit when it turns out to be a golden nugget.
Natural diamonds have value in terms of luxury. Synthetics do not, hence why they are cheap. If you want to buy a diamond because you think they're pretty, buy a synthetic one. If you want to buy a diamond as a luxury gift, buy a natural one.
Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings.
If you think that natural diamonds are trending towards no longer being a luxury item, then don't buy them at all (why purchase a synthetic one if you think the diamond market is just a marketing ruse anyways?)
I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it. I think that says a lot.
There has been a massive (but slow) sell off of natural diamonds. People in the industry have known this time was coming for a while.
It is very much a bag holder problem.
In some countries, people (often families) have saved for a long time to accumulate some inventory of something that is now worth a lot less. The diamond industry varies a bit by country, but in places where individual dealers hold a lot of inventory, there is a lot of incentive to be against synthetics.
I saw this firsthand in Turkey. I gave my a fiancée a ring with a very nice moissanite stone about a year and a half ago. She showed it to some jewelers and most had to really make a show of things like, "Congratulations on your upcoming wedding, but I can only work with real stones. We are not supposed to even look at these."
And I don't blame them for at least having to act this way. A lot of these family stores have hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars worth of natural diamond inventory that they took years to accumulate, and along comes something that is superior in every way for a fraction of the price.
Yes. In some other places around the world, the resistance to lab grown stuff has been violent. But the industry of natural diamonds is much more violent, and it is great to see that the way we mine diamonds will soon be a thing of the past.
They never had any value, apart from specialized ie glass cutting tool. Only when DeBeers realized they could push some fictious heavy marketing 'to prove your worth to woman you are asking to marry' for those shiny stones nobody wanted to buy, people who didn't know better got manipulated into buying them. They are supposedly very common in universe, and probably in deeper Earth too.
Correction is healthy and benefits mankind long term, there was nothing good coming from ie impact on Africa. Nobody cared about that, so things are fixed from another direction.
A diamond the size of a moon? Does that mean it's a single molecule of pure carbon the size of the moon? I wonder what effects gravity has at that scale
> I expect diamonds to lose almost all of their value.
Artificial diamonds, you mean. The natural ones will keep their price, just as "hand-crafted" goods did (and, I suspect, as "human-produced" content in the future will); it's a matter of status and signalling that you can afford to buy an inferior, more expensive product.
And I'd be very happy to see the demise of De Beers. It's amazing that De Beers can thrive for more than 100 years, but still, using clever marketing and tight control of supply to artificially jack up the price of diamond is counter-productive.
I have to bring this up because a lot of people are talking as if this is the entirety of the reason for their decrease. But there's diamond files, diamond cutting blades/wheels/drills, you can make glass from it (really only used in labs that absolutely need them because the price), and many more uses. Many of these don't care about size, quality, or clarity. So instead of pulling from scrap material from jewelry making or rejected diamonds you could just make your own and ensure your own supply.
One of the things I've loved about synthetic diamond prices coming down is just how cheap and available diamond cutting wheels and filing tools have become. You can now get a set of diamond files on Amazon for under $10. That's crazy
Lots of people are pretty into treating gems and rings as separate goods, or want grandma's diamond in a new ring. So I don't think getting them separately will be an issue. But I'd definitely consider looking up shiny precious gems on Reddit - for less money than a diamond you can really get some nicely cut and much more interesting Sapphires.
Yes pretty much any jeweler will be able to custom make a ring for you. I imagine its how the majority of engagement rings are sold, theres way too much variability in the stone and ring/setting people want for jewlers to only sell premade rings.
Also theres not much to a high quality ring and not much for you to spend money on there.
I looked a few years back after reading a bunch about how synthetics were cheaper in discussions like this. I did not find it to be notably true then. There was barely a discount for synthetic at all, the places I checked.
Ended up with moissanite, which was significantly cheaper than diamond, but still not, like, cheap if you care about it looking as diamond-like as possible, though I probably could have done as well with diamond buying “used” if I’d had the patience for it and more knowledge to be more confident I wasn’t getting scammed.
Assuming you mean "late 2018" by "about 5 years ago" (because that's where the graph has a 1.5:1 ratio), that $1200/$800 diamond was probably about 0.2 carat (obviously depends on the other Cs), and would likely be around $1200/$300 today.
Vivid colors are a trivial engineering problem, and one the Chinese have already cracked. Screenshot: https://ibb.co/s6gWTy1
Prices are dropping like a rock from a high tower, and colors and other options are becoming more available. Within 10 years you'll be able to buy virtually any diamond you like, in any common color, for less than a 2ct stone would have cost in 2014.
I didn't click through the headline, so until you called this out I thought I was skipping a price chart from the AP or something. I almost missed all that history and diagrams. Thanks!
Though if you are interested in investment grade diamods I'd say it is time to get out - diamonds have never been as rare as investors like to pretend, and things are going to get worse.
> If I buy a good loose lab grown diamond will I be able to find someone who will fit it into a high quality gold ring?
Yes, and even better, don't design the ring by yourself. Get a nice jewelry box for the diamond, use it for the proposal, and when you open the box, say:
"Our relationship is something we're going to build together. I want your opinion on everything for the rest of my life, because you're going to be my partner. I got the diamond, but let's design the ring together, you and I, because this is too important for me to do by myself. I need your help."
This is certainly good news for lasers. Many people don't realize how good diamonds are for this. Transparent with a 65% higher refractive index than glass, and 8x the thermal conductivity of copper. And completely scratch-proof!
Why and how became diamonds a necessity of marriage in the US? Did your fiancé really expect a diamond, and would have she be disappointed by something that has only worth to you?
sounds like may be soon we'll see diamond wafers for the chips (especially as the price of processed wafer from a fab increases, the cost of the source wafer itself is becoming less important) Add to that X-ray lithography, and the Moore's Law will continue for quite a while.
> I don't see demand for real diamonds going anywhere.
Calling one "real" and not the other is the wrong. Synthetic diamonds aren't an imitation. The distinction is "natural" and "synthetic".
> Not because it's a "better investment" but because they can.
From my experience it's to show off (that's the whole point of jewelry) and they'll be happy to tell you about their real diamond anytime the conversations ventures to anywhere near anything remotely related. I'd imagine the only people impressed are other suckers who happen to be poorer.
I'm genuinely curious why you bought a diamond at all then? Isn't the diamond itself a marketing gimmick, or do you and your wife honestly find them more beautiful than other stones?
On FM radio, Mervis Diamond Importers talks about how they offer both natural and lab-grown, but they make sure to mention that natural will "increase in value over time" (I assume because limited quantity + as lab becomes more common, natural becomes rarer). As cynical as I am, I'm sure they'd justify a high price for a natural diamond on those grounds, but also justify a similar high price for lab-growns because they're so environmentally conscious or something.
Radio waves around me are just constant drumbeat from large jewelry stores about why its such a bad idea to buy a synthetic diamond as it wont hold its value. They already know what is coming.
Yes, I did this with my wife, and it was a fantastic experience. She was able to design the ring exactly how she wanted, and working closely with the jeweller allowed us to ask all the right questions and get personalised advice.
You could also consider using a temporary ‘semi-set mount’ for the proposal. Then afterwards you could go to a jeweller and have them create the perfect ring to your specifications.
Now, 6 or 7 years my wife has a big birthday coming up and I’m considering a diamond pendant - when I bought the diamond for the engagement ring there was far fewer options but now there’s lots of places online. LooseGrownDiamond seems very competitive but if you find anywhere better priced I’d be interested!
> If I buy a good loose lab grown diamond will I be able to find someone who will fit it into a high quality gold ring?
I hear many jewelers are not big fans of this. It's like a customer who bought their own steak to a restaurant and asks the chefs to cook it at a discount.
It's not like the jewelers don't know where to buy cheap stones online.
Some jewelers are just happy to get the business, but expect others to sneer a bit.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.40
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND
The article explicitly and repeatedly advocates for the value of scientific progress and human innovation. It celebrates lab-grown diamonds as evidence that 'what nature can do, man is capable of doing better.' The narrative frames technology as overcoming natural scarcity and expanding access to materials and capabilities. This directly engages the right to participate in scientific advancement and share in its benefits.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The article states: 'Lab diamonds are a testament to the principle that what nature can do, man is capable of doing better.'
The article emphasizes accessibility gains: 'Diamonds grown in the lab are now cheaper and more beautiful than mined diamonds. A perfectly cut, flawless lab diamond costs a fraction of the price of a mined diamond of lesser quality.'
The narrative celebrates technological achievement: 'Since then, diamond manufacturing technology has progressed... Diamonds grown in the lab are now cheaper than mined diamonds and have superior physical, optical, chemical, and electrical properties.'
Inferences
The article advocates for scientific progress as a fundamental human good that improves material conditions and expands possibility
The framing of technology as democratizing access to previously scarce resources aligns with the right to participate in and benefit from scientific advancement
+0.30
Article 26Education
High Framing Practice
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.21
The article itself constitutes substantive educational content explaining the history of scientific discovery, chemistry of diamonds, and technological development. It supports intellectual development and cultural literacy about scientific progress. The absence of paywalls or access restrictions (per structural assessment) further enables education access.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The article provides comprehensive technical and historical education across 5,000+ words covering chemistry, scientific history, technical processes, and technical innovation
No paywall, registration requirement, or access restriction is present on the page
The article uses clear language to explain complex concepts (e.g., 'allotrope', 'catalysts', 'high pressure') with contextual definition
Inferences
The substantive educational content supports the right to education and intellectual development through open information access
The open-access delivery of complex scientific knowledge democratizes access to cultural and scientific education
+0.25
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Framing Advocacy
Editorial
+0.25
SETL
ND
The article documents U.S. Commerce Department secrecy orders preventing Hall from publishing research and mandating notification of the restrictions to all who had seen his work. It frames these orders as impediments to scientific progress and celebrates their eventual lifting through advocacy and inter-agency coordination. This directly engages freedom of expression and freedom to seek, receive, and impart information.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The article states: 'the Commerce Department placed a secrecy order on this design too and Hall was obligated to write to every person who had seen the tetrahedral press or requested a description of the device to inform them of this directive.'
The article records Hall's response: 'In exasperation, I considered giving up the field of high pressure'
The article documents the resolution: 'Many of the scientists to whom Hall communicated this directive thought the secrecy order was outrageous and complained to the Commerce Department. Other government agencies agreed and soon after, the Defense Department ordered the Commerce Department to abandon the secrecy orders on the belt and tetrahedral presses.'
Inferences
The article frames state-imposed restrictions on scientific publication and information-sharing as unjust obstacles to human knowledge advancement
The reversal of restrictions through scientific advocacy and inter-agency coordination is presented as a victory for freedom of expression and information access
+0.15
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
ND
The article frames human scientific achievement and capability to overcome natural limitations as humanistically positive, aligning with the Preamble's emphasis on universal dignity and human potential realized through collective effort.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article states: 'Lab diamonds are a testament to the principle that what nature can do, man is capable of doing better.'
The article frames General Electric's decision to continue funding research despite skepticism as supporting long-term human advancement
Inferences
The celebratory framing of technological progress implicitly endorses the Preamble's vision of human potential and dignity
The narrative emphasizes collaborative scientific effort and knowledge-sharing as expressions of universal human aspiration
-0.10
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Editorial
-0.10
SETL
ND
The article documents Howard Tracy Hall's compensation for inventing a revolutionary diamond synthesis technology: 'Hall's reward was a modest salary increase – from $10,000 to $11,000 per year – and a ten-dollar savings bond.' The characterization of this as 'modest' for a breakthrough invention that became commercially valuable implicitly critiques the inadequacy of his compensation relative to his labor contribution.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The article states: 'Hall's reward was a modest salary increase – from $10,000 to $11,000 per year – and a ten-dollar savings bond.'
This compensation followed Hall's invention of the belt press, which became General Electric's foundation for commercial diamond synthesis
The article notes Hall subsequently 'resigned from General Electric to become a full professor at Brigham Young University', suggesting dissatisfaction with his treatment
Inferences
The framing of compensation as 'modest' for a transformative technological contribution suggests the author views the wage as inadequate and unfair
The documented disparity between labor value and compensation implicitly critiques inequitable reward structures for worker innovation
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No discussion of equal dignity or universal rights.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
The article mentions Hall attributed workplace slights to religious prejudice but presents this as personal historical detail without advocacy or analysis of discrimination.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
No discussion of life, liberty, or personal security.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No discussion of slavery or servitude.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No discussion of torture or cruel treatment.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No discussion of legal personhood or recognition before law.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No substantive engagement with equal protection or equal treatment under law.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No discussion of effective legal remedy.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No discussion of arbitrary detention.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No discussion of fair trial or judicial process.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No discussion of due process or retroactive punishment.
ND
Article 12Privacy
No discussion of privacy.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No discussion of freedom of movement.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No discussion of asylum or refuge.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No discussion of nationality.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No discussion of marriage or family rights.
ND
Article 17Property
No substantive engagement with property rights, though monopoly pricing is mentioned historically.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
The article mentions Hall's Mormon faith and attributed discrimination but does not advocate for freedom of conscience or religion.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No discussion of freedom of assembly or association.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
No discussion of democratic participation.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No substantive discussion of social security or welfare.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
No discussion of rest or leisure rights.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
No substantive engagement with adequate standard of living, health, or welfare.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
No substantive engagement with international order or institutional frameworks for rights protection.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
No discussion of duties or community responsibilities.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No discussion of limits on rights or prevention of rights destruction.
No privacy policy or cookie disclosure visible in provided content
Terms of Service
—
No ToS discernible from page content
Accessibility
+0.05
Article 2 Article 26
Page uses semantic HTML and contrast-aware color scheme, suggesting baseline accessibility consideration; however, minimal evidence of WCAG compliance or assistive technology testing
Mission
0.00
No explicit mission statement visible in provided HTML
Editorial Code
—
No editorial code of conduct discernible from page content
Ownership
—
No ownership information visible in provided content
Access Model
+0.05
Article 26
No paywall or access restrictions evident in provided content; article appears open-access, supporting information access
Ad/Tracking
—
No ad or tracking pixels visible in provided HTML snippet
+0.15
Article 26Education
High Framing Practice
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.21
The page is open-access with no registration or paywall requirements. Clean semantic HTML structure and readable formatting support accessibility and information access. These structural features enable the editorial content's educational function.
ND
PreamblePreamble
Medium Framing
Not assessed at structural level.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Not applicable.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Not applicable.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Not applicable.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Not applicable.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Not applicable.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
Not applicable.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Not applicable.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Not applicable.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Not applicable.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Not applicable.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Not applicable.
ND
Article 12Privacy
Not applicable.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Not applicable.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not applicable.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not applicable.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
Not applicable.
ND
Article 17Property
Not applicable.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Not applicable.
ND
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Framing Advocacy
Not assessed at structural level.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not applicable.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not applicable.
ND
Article 22Social Security
Not applicable.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium Framing
Not assessed at structural level.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Not applicable.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Not applicable.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
High Advocacy Framing
Not assessed at structural level.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Not applicable.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Not applicable.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not applicable.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.77medium claims
Sources
0.8
Evidence
0.8
Uncertainty
0.7
Purpose
0.8
Propaganda Flags
1techniques detected
loaded language
Lab diamonds are a testament to the principle that what nature can do, man is capable of doing better.
Solution Orientation
0.55solution oriented
Reader Agency
0.3
Emotional Tone
celebratory
Valence
+0.6
Arousal
0.5
Dominance
0.5
Stakeholder Voice
0.354 perspectives
Speaks: individualscorporationsgovernment
About: workersscientistsgovernmentinstitutions
Temporal Framing
retrospectivehistorical
Geographic Scope
global
France, England, Soviet Union, United States, Brazil, Southern Africa, Arizona
Complexity
moderatemedium jargongeneral
Transparency
0.33
✓ Author
Audit Trail
25 entries
2026-02-28 09:53
eval_success
Light evaluated: Neutral (0.00)
--
2026-02-28 09:53
eval
Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral) 0.00
2026-02-28 09:53
rater_validation_warn
Light validation warnings for model llama-4-scout-wai: 0W 1R
--
2026-02-28 09:48
eval_success
Light evaluated: Neutral (0.00)
--
2026-02-28 09:48
rater_validation_warn
Light validation warnings for model llama-4-scout-wai: 0W 1R
--
2026-02-28 09:48
eval
Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: 0.00 (Neutral)
2026-02-28 09:41
eval_success
Light evaluated: Neutral (0.00)
--
2026-02-28 09:40
rater_validation_warn
Light validation warnings for model llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0W 1R
--
2026-02-28 09:40
eval
Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: 0.00 (Neutral)
2026-02-28 09:26
eval
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.21 (Mild positive)
2026-02-28 02:12
eval
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5: +0.15 (Mild positive)
2026-02-26 10:34
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:32
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:32
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:32
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:32
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:28
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:28
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:28
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:27
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:27
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:26
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:26
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:26
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
--
2026-02-26 10:25
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
build 2cb060f+2vdq · deployed 2026-02-28 11:41 UTC · evaluated 2026-02-28 11:41:14 UTC
Support HN HRCB
Each evaluation uses real API credits. HN HRCB runs on donations — no ads, no paywalls.
If you find it useful, please consider helping keep it running.