There is (so far as I know) no no-humour policy. There is a humour-isn't-enough policy. Example: That paper on the dynamics of cows. 32 points, a reasonable am

There is (so far as I know) no no-humour policy. There is a humour-isn't-enough policy. Example: That paper on the dynamics of cows. 32 points, a reasonable amount of discussion. HN-worthy because as well as being funny, it had some actual interest for, at least, a subset of HN readers. And yes, there is a not-lame-and-trivial* policy. If some lame and trivial things make it to the front page anyway, that's a bug not a feature, and it isn't a reason to abandon attempts to keep lame and trivial stuff away. No, HN is mostly not a source of things that will make you laugh for an hour. It's also mostly not a place to get laid, or a good place to vent about an annoying co-worker, or a good place to get constructive advice on a SF book you're writing. Not because there is anything wrong with laughing, sex, being annoyed, or writing SF, but because a community that tries to do too many divergent things at once is likely to end up doing none of them very well. And (do I repeat myself? very well, I repeat myself) that doesn't mean that HN has a no-sex or no-annoyance or no-SF policy. If you find or create something that's genuinely interesting to hackers and posting it happens to get you laid, express exactly what's wrong with one of your colleagues, or help polish your writing, no one is likely to mind at all. But it needs some HN-relevance to belong here, and those things don't give it that.