> the great majority of HN discussions start with a comment like this one: It's seriously flawed, etc. That's easily the best part of HN and reddit. A great he

> the great majority of HN discussions start with a comment like this one: It's seriously flawed, etc. That's easily the best part of HN and reddit. A great help with the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I don't think it's that HN is negative (though HN can certainly be negative), I think most articles really are just kinda crummy. Could be oversimplified, probably overhyped, maybe some wildly skewed sense of "providing both sides", or one of a million other possible problems. The comments will tell you about these problems, and that makes them a better barometer of "is this worth it?" than the title or even the content.