4 ms·

It's a filter, and it works very well. If you're tech savvy you can figure it out for yourself, if you're not then what are you doing on HN? Here is your lates

It's a filter, and it works very well. If you're tech savvy you can figure it out for yourself, if you're not then what are you doing on HN? Here is your latest reply RSS feed: https://hnrss.org/replies?id=warrenm https://hnrss.org/replies?id=warrenm

pbbbt 5y ago
There are people from different types of technical (or not!) backgrounds in all stages of their careers here. Your litmus test for who is correctly "on HN" seems unnecessarily exclusionary. I'm not sure if you meant it to come across like that.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  It probably did come out wrong. The point is that those people need to have enough motivation to stay and put up with the difficulty of using the site. This might seem counter-intuitive, but I'm convinced the quality of discussions can be proportional to the user hostility of the website :). See Reddit, Facebook, etc. An automated mechanism of getting instant replies would create flame wars much more easily too.
warrenm 5y ago
So ... now I need to use an external tool for something that's intentionally-lacking on the main site? no thanks :)
- WithinReason 5y ago
  No problem :) As I said in a parallel reply, people not knowing when they get a response improves the discussion quality here.
  - warrenm 5y ago
    In your opinion not knowing when a response occurs improves "discussion quality" Objectively, it reduces the opportunity for "discussion" - since you don't know someone is actually having a "discussion" (or trying to have one) with you Whether that correlates to better or worse "quality" is highly debatable :)
    - cirrus3 5y ago
      From replies, it seems that most people prefer it that way, so I wouldn't say it is _highly_ debatable. It appears to be different from your preference and that's about all.
      - warrenm 5y ago
        >I wouldn't say it is _highly_ debatable It is highly debatable - that some people happen to think letting conversations die because they can't find when someone is trying to engage them is ... certainly a different way of interacting with the world than is normal

pbbbt 5y ago

There are people from different types of technical (or not!) backgrounds in all stages of their careers here. Your litmus test for who is correctly "on HN" seems unnecessarily exclusionary. I'm not sure if you meant it to come across like that.

WithinReason 5y ago
It probably did come out wrong. The point is that those people need to have enough motivation to stay and put up with the difficulty of using the site. This might seem counter-intuitive, but I'm convinced the quality of discussions can be proportional to the user hostility of the website :). See Reddit, Facebook, etc. An automated mechanism of getting instant replies would create flame wars much more easily too.

warrenm 5y ago

So ... now I need to use an external tool for something that's intentionally-lacking on the main site? no thanks :)

WithinReason 5y ago
No problem :) As I said in a parallel reply, people not knowing when they get a response improves the discussion quality here.
- warrenm 5y ago
  In your opinion not knowing when a response occurs improves "discussion quality" Objectively, it reduces the opportunity for "discussion" - since you don't know someone is actually having a "discussion" (or trying to have one) with you Whether that correlates to better or worse "quality" is highly debatable :)
  - cirrus3 5y ago
    From replies, it seems that most people prefer it that way, so I wouldn't say it is _highly_ debatable. It appears to be different from your preference and that's about all.
    - warrenm 5y ago
      >I wouldn't say it is _highly_ debatable It is highly debatable - that some people happen to think letting conversations die because they can't find when someone is trying to engage them is ... certainly a different way of interacting with the world than is normal