I think at one point not too long ago that was more realistic than now. For one thing the general interest is limited to those that actually pay attention to t

I think at one point not too long ago that was more realistic than now. For one thing the general interest is limited to those that actually pay attention to the cause & effect of economic conditions, and that may not even be the mainstream majority of Facebook readers and TV watchers. I do agree the more mainstream items, controversial or not, were kind of the antithesis of the intended HN readership. Then rapidly over a period of months the economic landscape has changed in ways never seen for decades, last time it was anything like this was way before the internet or any tech startup scene of any kind. Very suddenly what could very well be a majority of HN readers[0] may be finding that bullshit in Washington which they have always known was going on, and never thought would have risen to the level of threat that their own ambition and technology could not overcome, has now escalated to the point where for many, things which were completely within reach or coming close are now in doubt through no fault of their own. Whether that's education, career opportunities, or merely continued survival in the tech or financial world, even if they had been "all in" for years or just getting the foot in the door. The "general consensus" is that people can not expect to do as well going forward as they would have if stability could have been maintained, and that surely extends to HN, but it is not a general audience here. The trick is to keep it from becoming a general audience while still allowing the kind of articles from non-tech sources, especially those having financial implications, that draw worthwhile comments of the kind that can't be found anywhere else. Because things that didn't used to matter, now relate to technology startup and growth possibilities like never before. Just because of bozos in Washington which have plainly reached a critical mass of lower intellect that was never endured before, not even decades ago. Regardless if they are all as cruel as Krugman makes them out to be or not. Some very successful and wealthy capitalists are even having that deer-in-the-headlights look themselves. People on the left & right are all in for a toss-up, due to more unpredictability than ever in solid-state history. Plenty will land on their feet and come out just fine, plenty will not. And who else but HN readers would value the commentary of other HN readers over that of the commentary on general interest sites, even over the full articles when a potential entrepreneur is looking for insight into how that might effect their prospects which seemed so much more dependent on personal effort and technology. Like not that long ago, and virtually overnight there are surely some ventures where all the ambition and technology in the world won't help you now, compared to doom that can be handed down from above with the stroke of a pen. [0] Especially ones who would really like to start new companies, or seek accelerator funding for little companies when they desire to build commitment for growth. Edit: not my downvote BTW, corrective upvote actually