It's possible to approve of the "hype-breaking" (aka TLDRing / ELI5ing so that HN comment readers can understand the degree to which it's interesting for those

It's possible to approve of the "hype-breaking" (aka TLDRing / ELI5ing so that HN comment readers can understand the degree to which it's interesting for those of us not close enough to the field to understand that for ourselves) without agreeing that that same comment should also complain that preprints shouldn't be submitted to / upvoted on HN. That's how I feel, anyway. I'd rather have seen a comment that has the same explanations in it but just generally less grumpy! Saying stuff like "It's not really that novel." doesn't really contribute much, when it could either be explained why it isn't novel by explaining how similar it is to something earlier that can be referenced, or thinking about what if anything is novel in this research - assuming it isn't being accused of just replicating something already done.