4 ms·
Are these kinds of articles a new breed of rage bait? They keep ending up on the front page with thriving comment sections, but in terms of content they're pret
by abcde666777 8mo ago
Are these kinds of articles a new breed of rage bait? They keep ending up on the front page with thriving comment sections, but in terms of content they're pretty low in nutritional value.
So I'm guessing they just rise because they spark a debate?
- eastbound 8mo agoThere’s barely any debate, people don’t answer each other; It’s rather about invoking the wonder and imagination of everyone’s brain. Like spatial conquest or an economic crisis: It will change everything but you can’t do anything immediately about it, and everyone tries to understand what it will change so they can adapt. It’s more akin to 24hrs junk news cycle, where everything is presented as an alert but your tempted to listen because it might affect you.
- anoplus 8mo agoI am interested in a post that will teach me how to consume only the news that really relevant for me
- sph 8mo agoHere’s one: just don’t read the news. Google what you are interested in at the moment, and dive long into what matters to you, rather than being fed engagement bait. Easier said than done, I understand that.
- anoplus 8mo agoI guess I'll have an agent for that one day. News agent.
- gilleain 8mo agoYou could even have your 'news agent' print your news every day on some cheap paper. Like a 'news periodical', shall we say.
- direwolf20 8mo agoI heard The Onion does that!
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- avaer 8mo agoThe hidden fallacy in your comment is that there is such a thing as "news that is really relevant for you". This isn't all that different than saying that it would be nice if someone else did your thinking for you -- which is a totally fine thing to want, but let's not get confused. "News that is relevant for you" is a concept made up by advertising companies to legitimize them in having power over what you see. Because if they presented it plainly, you would be rightly alarmed.
- layer8 8mo agoIt is the meta-level counterpart of the fact that LLMs are difficult to reason about.
- sph 8mo agoIt’s both rage and hype bait, farming karma. The optimists upvote and praise this type of content, then the pessimists come to comment why this field is going to the dogs. Rinse and repeat.
- simianwords 8mo agoWhat I find interesting is that similar propositions made 2 years ago was ragebait to the same people but they ended up coming true.
- wiseowise 8mo agoIt is still a rage bait.
- zkmon 8mo ago> So I'm guessing they just rise because they spark a debate? Precisely. Attention economy. It rules.
- xyzsparetimexyz 8mo agoThis one didn't contain a sepia tinted ai slop diagram so it beats the average
- j45 8mo agoMaybe it still could be new to some.
- feverzsj 8mo agoYou can get to the front page easily with dozen upvotes, like from your colleagues and friends. Sadly, that's possibly the only way to get your post some attention here now.
- janandonly 8mo agoI would disagree. It’s true that scouring the New section reveals a lot of hidden gems, but I know from experience that one in every 20-30 of my submissions ends up on the frontpage.
- elzbardico 8mo agoVibe coders are the new eternal september
- herodoturtle 8mo agoI didn’t catch this reference, so adding the below for other folks in the same boat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September “Eternal September or the September that never ended was a cultural phenomenon during a period beginning around late 1993 and early 1994, when Internet service providers began offering Usenet access to many new users. Before this, the only sudden changes in the volume of new users of Usenet occurred each September, when cohorts of university students would gain access to it for the first time, in sync with the academic calendar.”
- direwolf20 8mo agoMore generally, it's whenever the expert to newbie ratio in a community crosses a certain threshold and never returns.
- discreteevent 8mo agoEternal LLMber
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- etrvic 8mo agoI once read here on HN that a good metric for filtering controversial comment sections is number of upvotes/comments. If it's bellow one, the thread is probably controversial.
- layer8 8mo agoAre you saying controversial is good or bad?
- etrvic 8mo agoNeither, that's up to your individual preference. Although I think that controversial threads have more noise, but sometimes provide a more enjoyable read.
- layer8 8mo agoSo what use is it to filter them? It seems you still have to judge their worth based on their actual contents.
- jermaustin1 8mo agoThe front page has an algorithm that is "less noise, more news" but if you go to the /active page, you get more conversation-driven submissions. I tend to load both up and refresh every few hours.
- etrvic 8mo ago> The FAQ notes that submission rank is impacted by "software which downweights overheated discussions." A good rule of thumb for this effect is when the number of comments on a submission exceeds its score. Moderators can overrule the downranking for appropriate, not-actually-a-flame-war discussions. https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented
- amelius 8mo ago
- g947o 8mo agoI complained about the same thing, but apparently people take the bait. Which is why I only quickly scan through the comments to see if there are new insights I haven't seen in the past few months. Surprise, almost never.
- bonoboTP 8mo agoThis comment has even lower nutritional value. It's just a "dislike" with more words. You could have offered your counterarguments or if you're too tired of it but still feel you need to be heard, you could have linked to a previous comment or post of yours.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 8mo agoI mean, are you gonna die on a hill defending every low-quality content in HN? Because I think it’s perfectly OK to call it out so that moderators can notice and improve. You seem to think that readers have an inherent responsibility to salvage someone else’s bad article.
- bonoboTP 8mo agoIt's the top comment. But I'll disengage as this gets too meta. I'd encourage talking about the substance.
- abcde666777 8mo agoWell, I didn't articulate it but behind my comment was a question - who's actually upvoting this stuff and why? To me the claim of the article was silly on the surface of it, silly enough that I was surprised that folks consider it worthy of discussion. Is there just a large number of upvoters here without even a basic understanding of the topic at hand? Or is there some other explanation beyond that?
- bonoboTP 8mo agoHacker news is a bit different from Reddit or other social media. This is a good summary, especially the section titled "Comments". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I notice I'm talking to a 2 week old account, I should've checked before engaging.
- deleted 8mo ago