11 ms·

Some of my two cents: * I don't really see the value-add of a curated list of what is already a curated list. Down the rabbit hole... * The site's definition

by samhuk 4y ago

Some of my two cents: * I don't really see the value-add of a curated list of what is already a curated list. Down the rabbit hole... * The site's definition of what is included and what is excluded is extremely vague. "general news", "unique views", "interesting stuff". I mean come'on... * At least HN has a relatively excellent definition of what counts as acceptable content (relative to other social media platform's definitions, which are deliberately vague to allow complete hegemonic content control). * If I had a buck every time someone said "Hacker News needs to be more hacker and less news", only to realize that their definition of "hacker" and "news" was very unique to them and so supposing that there should be some filter to "objectively make HN better" was actually very subjective and of little use as a publicly available tool. IMHO, this should have been a private tool of theirs. They could have probably achieved their subjective goal of "more hacker less news" with a little script to filter out HN posts for specific domains and keywords.

cooperadymas 4y ago
> IMHO, this should have been a private tool of theirs. This is the most depressing toxic response masked as constructive criticism that I've read on this site in, well, at least a day. OP should ignore this and continue to put your ideas out there even if they may not be perfect or match someone else's.
- samhuk 4y ago
  > most depressing toxic response It's concerning that you have such a low bar for using such extreme language, which seems a bit tone-deaf given the point you are trying to make. Couldn't you have phrased that in a less flamebait way? To elaborate and address your valid point, however: OP implies a confusion between the subjective and objective. The site makes statements in an objective way as if they are facts about what is "news", "interesting", and what is bad content. Being a publicly available tool reinforces that implication further. My final takeaway point, as explained by all the previous points before it, was that this is incorrect because the OP's objectively described views are in fact very subjective. This is one in a long line (dozens?) of "HN but more X less X"es, and most make this mistake, which is why they never gain any ground. I could have been less discouraging, however, so I'll try and take that onboard.
turtleyacht 4y ago
Is that the meta of HN though? Hackers building out their own private versions of the site, an invisible weave atop the common view: events for folks they follow to chat with, profiles in an iframe with custom links--personal pet features. Remember dark matter developers? Who knows how much of our echoes reverberate in the space of a holographic universe, streams consumed in a wrapped-app above. So the social piece is the architecture to enable it, but not published, to make a kind of ownership stickiness... The first rule is...
- samhuk 4y ago
  Upvoted for sheer surreality

by samhuk 4y ago

cooperadymas 4y ago

> IMHO, this should have been a private tool of theirs. This is the most depressing toxic response masked as constructive criticism that I've read on this site in, well, at least a day. OP should ignore this and continue to put your ideas out there even if they may not be perfect or match someone else's.

samhuk 4y ago
> most depressing toxic response It's concerning that you have such a low bar for using such extreme language, which seems a bit tone-deaf given the point you are trying to make. Couldn't you have phrased that in a less flamebait way? To elaborate and address your valid point, however: OP implies a confusion between the subjective and objective. The site makes statements in an objective way as if they are facts about what is "news", "interesting", and what is bad content. Being a publicly available tool reinforces that implication further. My final takeaway point, as explained by all the previous points before it, was that this is incorrect because the OP's objectively described views are in fact very subjective. This is one in a long line (dozens?) of "HN but more X less X"es, and most make this mistake, which is why they never gain any ground. I could have been less discouraging, however, so I'll try and take that onboard.

turtleyacht 4y ago

Is that the meta of HN though? Hackers building out their own private versions of the site, an invisible weave atop the common view: events for folks they follow to chat with, profiles in an iframe with custom links--personal pet features. Remember dark matter developers? Who knows how much of our echoes reverberate in the space of a holographic universe, streams consumed in a wrapped-app above. So the social piece is the architecture to enable it, but not published, to make a kind of ownership stickiness... The first rule is...

samhuk 4y ago
Upvoted for sheer surreality