3 ms·
REPOSTED from deleted top level comment. @dang I'm seeing that it was posted 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 https://news.ycombinat
by patcon 2y ago
REPOSTED from deleted top level comment.
@dang I'm seeing that it was posted 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958
I appreciate the rules, but am very disappointed. There are some incredibly moving comments in here. I rarely feel as connected to the hacker news community as when reading these comments. The fact that it was erased off the front page for some rigid application of the rules, that leaves me with a bad taste.
For your consideration in the next cycle: pls consider valence of comments when determining dupes. If there is either an unfolding of (1) very valuable and new information, or (2) very sincere and vulnerable feelings, people might appreciate your bending the rules. thanks for considering
- jll29 2y agoDang is a fantastic moderator (thanks for your services, @dang!), and yet I also agree with the parent poster that this thread has been special. [No good rule without worthy exceptions ;-).]
- dang 2y agoOk, I've turned off the dupe marker on this one.
- solardev 2y agoThanks for being flexible with the rules! This is the first time I've seen this post, and I appreciated it.
- patcon 2y agoyou are delightful. i appreciate you, dang
- _yb2s 2y agoThank you Dang. I feel this is the right time to bring this discussion back, as HN has recently been having a lot of discussions about love, death, and loss. This discussion really isn’t only about the linked letter.
- swyx 2y agothank you dang. this is a special topic and deserved the exception
- rav3ndust 2y agothank you. this was also my first time seeing this post, and it was a very heartwarming read, despite the undertone of melancholy.
- em-bee 2y agoi agree with this. the problem with duplicates is that they often lead to repeating arguments that have already been hashed out in the previous discussions, and nothing new is being learned by repeating the same discussion after a short time. however, this is only true if the actual content of the article is being discussed, and that is not the case here. we get discussions about loss, depression and other topics in that area every other month or so. and these discussions aren't so much about the articles themselves, but they invite people to share their personal stories that only relate to the article. if it was the same people each time just repeating their stories, then it would make sense to call it a duplicate, but instead these posts open up a space for different people to share and deal with their grief and their struggles, which i think is worthwhile to allow more frequently than duplication rules would permit.