4 ms·
Six year olds are literally mentioned only in the title of the article.
by rustamm 5y ago
Six year olds are literally mentioned only in the title of the article.
- reayn 5y agoI haven't been on HN for a long time (maybe a year counting my pre-account lurking stage) but I've noticed that quite a lot of comments here seem to just be knee-jerk reactions to what the submissions' title is. Not saying that's a bad thing in its entirety (the titles here are usually great and can easily spark discussion on their own) but just something I hope I'm not alone in having noticed.
- 1123581321 5y agoHey, I read the doccloud PDF in the article, but I wasn’t going to pass on a good Big Lebowski reference opportunity. I do think I see more people appearing to make substantial comments that are based on misunderstandings from the title alone, and that’s more worrisome to me.
- reayn 5y agoOops, the reference flew right above my head, nothing personal lol. >I do think I see more people appearing to make substantial comments that are based on misunderstandings from the title alone, and that’s more worrisome to me. Exactly.
- Pxtl 5y agoIt's a reference to a line from The Big Lebowski. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdHLM-WjwG4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdHLM-WjwG4
- cbtacy 5y ago"Facebook was considering new products targeted at children as young as six years old, according to a new document handed over to Congress by whistleblower Frances Haugen."