5 ms·
There's this strange phenomenon on HN sometimes -- or at least I've noticed it here several times -- where people will somehow manage to condemn the article whi
by gipp 6y ago
There's this strange phenomenon on HN sometimes -- or at least I've noticed it here several times -- where people will somehow manage to condemn the article while arguing for exactly the thesis of the article. That's what you're doing here.
- StavrosK 6y agoThat's what happens when people don't actually read the article before they comment.
- watwut 6y agoGiven that a lot of people dont read articles and go straight to comments, comments that challenge title are valuable if the title is at odds with article content.
- mschuetz 6y agoI literally can't read most articles due do adblock blocker or because they block european visitors.
- paulcole 6y agoTurn your adblocker off if you want to read those articles? If you don’t, don’t.
- mschuetz 6y agoadblockers are a non-negotiable necessity nowadays. not due to ads, but due to tracking.
- paulcole 6y agoOK, then you don’t get to read the article. It’s a fair trade.
- mschuetz 6y agoThat is fine, I just wanted to give another perspective why people only read the title and not articles.
- paulcole 6y agoThat doesn’t give a perspective on why they feel compelled to comment though. This is a discussion of the article not a guess-what-the-article-might’ve-said contest.
- mschuetz 6y agoMost articles end up being a discussion of only what the title says, and not being able to read the articles is one of the reasons.
- o-__-o 6y agoFirefox containers, cookie auto delete, and overlay remover. “Your welcome.”
- xook 6y agoTo give a more helpful response: Some of those "turn off your adblock" barriers are just CSS and can be removed. When the browser gets physically redirected, (like Forbes did (or does?)) I've found using plain old wget will get the page in question (in most cases).
- perl4ever 6y agoI read the whole article and it is consistent with the parent comment, not yours, in my opinion. It does mention stupid things done by the Trump administration, but at the end, it describes the CDC failures as "baffling" and presents the blame of an "inept administration" i.e. Trump, as an excuse. Overall, it seems to be an article about the inexplicable failures of the CDC, with an effort to be "fair and balanced" in covering other factors.
- manicdee 6y agoYou’ll need to enlighten me as to how the article raises the issue of starving the beast when the only attempt at suggesting Whitehouse pressure being involved was a suggestion of why the CDC would continue trying to develop its own COVID-19 test when the process of development was fraught with errors and missteps. Failing that, can you tell me how many paragraphs you read in the “starve the beast” version of the article you read?