4 ms·

There's nothing in there about "extraordinary" and plenty about (along with years of moderator comments) about not why-is-this-on-the-front-page-ing. It is a de

by pvg 4y ago

There's nothing in there about "extraordinary" and plenty about (along with years of moderator comments) about not why-is-this-on-the-front-page-ing. It is a decidedly answered HN question.

mdp2021 4y ago
> It is a decidedly answered HN question No, very certainly not: it is not an answered question why *this* specific article has an intellectual interest above a large degree of randomness.
- pvg 4y ago
  The answer is 'this is a really boring, repetitive question we know the answer to so we're not going to have it in every submission because the point of this forum is interestingness'. That's it.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    And in fact, «we're not going to have it in every submission», but it will have to come out when submissions are puzzling in their interesting sides. Which will beg the legitimate question, like in this specific case, of what was the "interesting" side that some of us have been unable to detect. In fact, no, we do not know the answer to that question - the instances, not the general idea -, otherwise it would not be asked, and the statement starting with «because the point» makes no apparent sense.
    - pvg 4y ago
      Not every post is going to make sense to you or be interesting to you. Since that's true for someone on almost every post, it's not practical to discuss it every time and still have an interesting forum.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        In theory. In practice, you can see that it does not happen frequently, and probably not out of restraint. It does not happen frequently because to get the points of interest is an implicit, trivial exercise, at most one step in leisure, in the overwhelmingest majority of cases. And I suppose the statistical tail which you may theorize and would be a frequent nuisance, must be used to conceal their doubts having learnt what is preferable. When it instead does happen, the discussion of "what makes it interesting" is still full part of the game. I remember having myself to explain queriers how some third member's submissions were "intellectual curiosity" consistent: it produced "Aaaaaaah!"s and good debate. Because on our typical matters there is standard practice, while it is on the subtler that we gain the unusual opening from notes, "well there you missed to see that at the time, wood was not invented". And from a revolutionary idea, you are finally more than you were. Note that if a member /felt/ that something is interesting, that would not really suffice to match the context of debate: we put things in words, and through the intellect we shall pass, as is in the binding of our contract. Otherwise, we would have an interesting "museum", not an «interesting forum». Now: (given that all the theoretics you laid out were already clear beforehand, but again, they are in a vacuum) have you actually read TFA, and have you discerned what would be the subtle glimpse of "aha" novelty beyond the mediocre best guess of this writer, that "the missed Queen would have been a personality inconsistent with being installed on the Throne by dissidents"? If anything better comes out than this modest, insufficient proposal, then maybe our time was well invested; if nothing better emerges, that we can move on and forget about the whole matter.
        pvg 4y ago
        No, not in theory. Such articles are fine on HN and why-is-this-on-hn comments are not. Again, a really well-settled HN issue for which you can find plenty of moderator comments offering detailed reasoning. You don't have to derive this from first principles.
        mdp2021 4y ago
        If you curb questions such as the specific one (about the points of interest of that specific article), you choke the "intellectual curiosity" purpose. You are very apparently mixing the "why-is-this-on-hn" context with "why is this interesting" - which is a legitimate side of intellectual investigation. > Such articles Which "such" articles?!
  - chrisweekly 4y ago
    It'd have been helpful for the OP to have included a blurb about their motivation for sharing the link; there's literally just a URL and an opaque title. Again, I wasn't complaining, just asking for context.
    - pvg 4y ago
      That's just not how HN works. Sure, if someone is so motivated they can add a comment. But it's not a requirement. If the post is of no interest to you, just move on. If it's a bad post, flag it and if there's something really wrong with it, email the mods.

by pvg 4y ago

There's nothing in there about "extraordinary" and plenty about (along with years of moderator comments) about not why-is-this-on-the-front-page-ing. It is a decidedly answered HN question.

mdp2021 4y ago

> It is a decidedly answered HN question No, very certainly not: it is not an answered question why *this* specific article has an intellectual interest above a large degree of randomness.

pvg 4y ago
The answer is 'this is a really boring, repetitive question we know the answer to so we're not going to have it in every submission because the point of this forum is interestingness'. That's it.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  And in fact, «we're not going to have it in every submission», but it will have to come out when submissions are puzzling in their interesting sides. Which will beg the legitimate question, like in this specific case, of what was the "interesting" side that some of us have been unable to detect. In fact, no, we do not know the answer to that question - the instances, not the general idea -, otherwise it would not be asked, and the statement starting with «because the point» makes no apparent sense.
  - pvg 4y ago
    Not every post is going to make sense to you or be interesting to you. Since that's true for someone on almost every post, it's not practical to discuss it every time and still have an interesting forum.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      In theory. In practice, you can see that it does not happen frequently, and probably not out of restraint. It does not happen frequently because to get the points of interest is an implicit, trivial exercise, at most one step in leisure, in the overwhelmingest majority of cases. And I suppose the statistical tail which you may theorize and would be a frequent nuisance, must be used to conceal their doubts having learnt what is preferable. When it instead does happen, the discussion of "what makes it interesting" is still full part of the game. I remember having myself to explain queriers how some third member's submissions were "intellectual curiosity" consistent: it produced "Aaaaaaah!"s and good debate. Because on our typical matters there is standard practice, while it is on the subtler that we gain the unusual opening from notes, "well there you missed to see that at the time, wood was not invented". And from a revolutionary idea, you are finally more than you were. Note that if a member /felt/ that something is interesting, that would not really suffice to match the context of debate: we put things in words, and through the intellect we shall pass, as is in the binding of our contract. Otherwise, we would have an interesting "museum", not an «interesting forum». Now: (given that all the theoretics you laid out were already clear beforehand, but again, they are in a vacuum) have you actually read TFA, and have you discerned what would be the subtle glimpse of "aha" novelty beyond the mediocre best guess of this writer, that "the missed Queen would have been a personality inconsistent with being installed on the Throne by dissidents"? If anything better comes out than this modest, insufficient proposal, then maybe our time was well invested; if nothing better emerges, that we can move on and forget about the whole matter.
      - pvg 4y ago
        No, not in theory. Such articles are fine on HN and why-is-this-on-hn comments are not. Again, a really well-settled HN issue for which you can find plenty of moderator comments offering detailed reasoning. You don't have to derive this from first principles.
        mdp2021 4y ago
        If you curb questions such as the specific one (about the points of interest of that specific article), you choke the "intellectual curiosity" purpose. You are very apparently mixing the "why-is-this-on-hn" context with "why is this interesting" - which is a legitimate side of intellectual investigation. > Such articles Which "such" articles?!
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  It'd have been helpful for the OP to have included a blurb about their motivation for sharing the link; there's literally just a URL and an opaque title. Again, I wasn't complaining, just asking for context.
  - pvg 4y ago
    That's just not how HN works. Sure, if someone is so motivated they can add a comment. But it's not a requirement. If the post is of no interest to you, just move on. If it's a bad post, flag it and if there's something really wrong with it, email the mods.