3 ms·
Right, but you could find and link to that thread instead of “citing it” from memory. As it is it remains conjecture. (Aside, this thread now has 300 comments
by bentlegen 3y ago
Right, but you could find and link to that thread instead of “citing it” from memory.
As it is it remains conjecture.
(Aside, this thread now has 300 comments after just 2 hours. HN’s purported slowdown in the WFH era feels grossly exaggerated.)
- llm_nerd 3y agoYes, it's conjecture. I explicitly, outright said it was an unproven anecdote. Demanding citations when I'm explicitly giving a "feel" narrative is misplaced and not charitable. As to how many uniques you can expect from a front-page on HN, go ahead and search. Pre-2020 you can find countless people detailing 30,000+ uniques in the first few hours (my own, personal, direct experience was 50,000+). Now, if you average out more recent reports, you can expect about 11,000 over the first 24 hours. And sure, the most inclusive possible discussion gets a few hundred comments. Everyone wants to put some paint on the shed. There is a 4 hour old submission on the front page with 2 comments. Eh, guess it doesn't represent much.
- bentlegen 3y agoAh, see I think denigrating the conversation by moving to personal attacks - painting me as a child who “stomps my feet” - is far less charitable. I legitimately wanted to see the data / could be persuaded. Aside, my personal anecdote is that this lack of decorum is why I rarely comment on HN anymore. So perhaps you are right.
- llm_nerd 3y agoGiven that I explicitly stated that it was 100% unproven conjecture and anecdotes, replying with scare-quotes and demands for citation is not a good example of decorum. It's argumentative and hostile, and with little intention of good faith. Anyways, hope you have a good day.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]