> Reading programmers discuss medicine on HN is as painful as reading doctors discussing programming. Personalized filtering might help with that. And thus he

> Reading programmers discuss medicine on HN is as painful as reading doctors discussing programming. Personalized filtering might help with that. And thus help address eternal September effects, of bad content driving out good. Even with HN tech posts, I notice I've a 'this discussion is too reddit' threshold - an "ok, this could have been an interesting discussion topic, but there's too much low-quality discussion already here, and tilting at 'someone on the Internet is wrong' isn't a happy thing, so I'll skip this one". There are a lot of HN-like communities of expertise across many fields. Public and private. They are often a good place to get news commentary. With the exception of a few reporters who are part of such a community, and write for a more general forum (sometimes with community feedback on their reporting), general news media (NYTimes et al) feel to me like reporting after a foreign bureau has closed - lacking a reality check, insight, and nuance. Getting better at this seems to be one of those societally critical technologies for which the incentives are poor, so there's little progress decade after decade. For new discussion systems, perhaps being better at insulating experts from this pain, and thus remaining motivated to contribute, might help drive adoption?