5 ms·

I wish I could upvote this more. I would be willing to bet a number of such comments did not even read the article and responding based on impulse with their gr

I wish I could upvote this more. I would be willing to bet a number of such comments did not even read the article and responding based on impulse with their gripe about modern society du-jour.

renewiltord 5y ago
A thing on HN you will see frequently is that someone will be told that X happened and they’ll explain confidently post hoc why. Occasionally, they will misunderstand this as Y happening and they’ll explain that. In the best universe, they will misunderstand X having happened as Y having happened and explain it even though Y did not happen. The existence of this last characteristic makes me trust post hoc explanations very little. Explanations should make falsifiable predictions. It is easy to fit the facts with a false thesis. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29005765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29005765
- iratewizard 5y ago
  The point system here is meant to help people find insightful comments. There was even a time on this site when it was used like that. But now it's used to show support for opinions you agree with and to find the confident idiots with grand theories of how the world can be modeled.
  - algebraically 5y ago
    Oh the irony.
sincerely 5y ago
The HN rule about not being able to ask if someone read the article or imply/suggest that they did not is the worst rule on the site, because it encourages this behaviour :(
- Der_Einzige 5y ago
  HN needs a lot of rule changes. The narrative of "dang is a great mod" and "HNs rules are actually great" flys in the face of repeated examples of complete incompetence/corruption within HN and it's moderation practices. (E.g. calling discussion about political topics dang doesn't like "ideological flame bait" and deleting the posts.)
  - voldacar 5y ago
    Could you give some specific examples?
  - nindalf 5y ago
    dang being great and HN rules being great are two separate claims. It's entirely possible that someone agrees with one of them and disagrees with the other. For example, me. I disagreed with one of the rules. I spoke to dang about it and shared why. He listened to me, shared his perspective on why the rule exists and went out of his way to resolve the issue for me specifically. He strives to lower the temperature of discussions that get too heated. He tries (and mostly succeeds) to get folks to stay on topic and civil. He keeps the site free from trash or astro-turfing. And he does all this alone. > complete incompetence/corruption within HN This is a strong claim. If you have evidence of it, show us. Or retract it.
- MrGilbert 5y ago
  Well, you can still point it out by starting your reply with "The article clearly states that [...]" It's the offensive part that's not encouraged here - and I dig that.

I wish I could upvote this more. I would be willing to bet a number of such comments did not even read the article and responding based on impulse with their gripe about modern society du-jour.

renewiltord 5y ago

A thing on HN you will see frequently is that someone will be told that X happened and they’ll explain confidently post hoc why. Occasionally, they will misunderstand this as Y happening and they’ll explain that. In the best universe, they will misunderstand X having happened as Y having happened and explain it even though Y did not happen. The existence of this last characteristic makes me trust post hoc explanations very little. Explanations should make falsifiable predictions. It is easy to fit the facts with a false thesis. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29005765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29005765

iratewizard 5y ago
The point system here is meant to help people find insightful comments. There was even a time on this site when it was used like that. But now it's used to show support for opinions you agree with and to find the confident idiots with grand theories of how the world can be modeled.
- algebraically 5y ago
  Oh the irony.

sincerely 5y ago

The HN rule about not being able to ask if someone read the article or imply/suggest that they did not is the worst rule on the site, because it encourages this behaviour :(

Der_Einzige 5y ago
HN needs a lot of rule changes. The narrative of "dang is a great mod" and "HNs rules are actually great" flys in the face of repeated examples of complete incompetence/corruption within HN and it's moderation practices. (E.g. calling discussion about political topics dang doesn't like "ideological flame bait" and deleting the posts.)
- voldacar 5y ago
  Could you give some specific examples?
- nindalf 5y ago
  dang being great and HN rules being great are two separate claims. It's entirely possible that someone agrees with one of them and disagrees with the other. For example, me. I disagreed with one of the rules. I spoke to dang about it and shared why. He listened to me, shared his perspective on why the rule exists and went out of his way to resolve the issue for me specifically. He strives to lower the temperature of discussions that get too heated. He tries (and mostly succeeds) to get folks to stay on topic and civil. He keeps the site free from trash or astro-turfing. And he does all this alone. > complete incompetence/corruption within HN This is a strong claim. If you have evidence of it, show us. Or retract it.
MrGilbert 5y ago
Well, you can still point it out by starting your reply with "The article clearly states that [...]" It's the offensive part that's not encouraged here - and I dig that.