> experts on topics far outside their expertise to be considered healthy I've noticed this more recently on HN as well. There are a few areas where I'll actua

> experts on topics far outside their expertise to be considered healthy I've noticed this more recently on HN as well. There are a few areas where I'll actually know what's going on under the hood in the specific niche area of industry or wherever, but then I'll come on HN and see the top comment completely off base, with maybe one or two refutations of that comment way down at the bottom. There's no actual verification by experts for each topic (not sure how there could be though). I also notice this happens more the farther away from HN's core focus area the subject matter is on. Internet security? Tons of great advice. Boeing? It gets a little iffier, with a lot of armchair small prop pilots, who give you a completely different outlook than going and talking to a pilot who actually flies large jets for decades (but then wait a bit longer and pilots who fly large jets for decades show up on HN, which is cool - and no offense to the small prop pilots, I actually enjoy reading a lot of that discussion). US Patent law? You see some very outright false info on HN, I guess because while there are some very good patent lawyers here, there aren't very many. Also HN being a global platform inevitably leads to discussions on law getting completely mixed up. But then of course Gell-Mann Amnesia sets in and I keep reading anyways. :) The moderation here is pretty strong for keeping it civil and polite, which helps HN be a much less anxiety-inducing place.