4 ms·

Granted, citations were needed for the post you're hammering. (I can't find anything online either way, re sleep loss in this accident.) But the author might no

Granted, citations were needed for the post you're hammering. (I can't find anything online either way, re sleep loss in this accident.) But the author might not be speculating about the sleep loss, insiders sometimes comment here, in which case there won't be citations. That sleep loss contributes to accidents and is therefore relevant to the discussion (if true) is in no way speculative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=accident+sleep+loss https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=accident+sleep+los...

detaro 8y ago
And this is why HN has the rules about "general news" it has. Discussion of specific issues is interesting, but they're better discussed in extra threads instead of as speculations on a case nothing concrete is known about.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I need you to disambiguate. What do you identify as an irrelevant "specific issue" in this thread?
  - detaro 8y ago
    I haven't called anything "irrelevant". But without anything actually known, comments can basically only reiterate generic points about plane crashes or suggest random possible reasons, which predictably leads to discussions on how it's irresponsible to speculate or suggest specific (now dead) people misbehaved without evidence. It doesn't make for good content, and the fact alone that the crash happened isn't a good topic for HN. This specific subthread starts with either speculation or unsourced claims of lack of sleep: That alone is an interesting topic of discussion, but better placed on a submission about a specific case where this is known to have been a factor, or some general article about it, not here.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      My point is that we don't know whether the poster was speculating. I would be happy with a citations for all comments rule, but it's not in place now. The comment had details, wasn't general speculation.
stordoff 8y ago
> (if true) Exactly - the idea that the crew had any sleep loss is speculative. I doubt anyone would suggest that lack of sleep doesn't contribute to accidents.

detaro 8y ago

And this is why HN has the rules about "general news" it has. Discussion of specific issues is interesting, but they're better discussed in extra threads instead of as speculations on a case nothing concrete is known about.

Nomentatus 8y ago
I need you to disambiguate. What do you identify as an irrelevant "specific issue" in this thread?
- detaro 8y ago
  I haven't called anything "irrelevant". But without anything actually known, comments can basically only reiterate generic points about plane crashes or suggest random possible reasons, which predictably leads to discussions on how it's irresponsible to speculate or suggest specific (now dead) people misbehaved without evidence. It doesn't make for good content, and the fact alone that the crash happened isn't a good topic for HN. This specific subthread starts with either speculation or unsourced claims of lack of sleep: That alone is an interesting topic of discussion, but better placed on a submission about a specific case where this is known to have been a factor, or some general article about it, not here.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    My point is that we don't know whether the poster was speculating. I would be happy with a citations for all comments rule, but it's not in place now. The comment had details, wasn't general speculation.

stordoff 8y ago

> (if true) Exactly - the idea that the crew had any sleep loss is speculative. I doubt anyone would suggest that lack of sleep doesn't contribute to accidents.