4 ms·
Fair enough. I agree the numbers could be interesting. But it's quite different if you want to see users' names. I grow weary of HN's Singaporean (overly san
by phugoid 17y ago
Fair enough. I agree the numbers could be interesting. But it's quite different if you want to see users' names.
I grow weary of HN's Singaporean (overly sanitized) approach to geek discussion. Geeks suffer enough from intellectual narcissism without trying to constitutionalize it. Thankfully there's enough brain candy on the site to compensate.
And people, let's go light on the hacker this and hacker that. We all get it. We're all keen to learn and explore. But... was Michael Jackson a hacker? Geebus. Labels are overrated.
God Bless the USA, but there's something distinctly American about coming up with a subtly differentiated product and then hyping it as the total opposite of what came just before it. Yeah, I mean HN / Reddit / Slashdot.
P.S.: I made the remark about being downmodded because I assumed my gentle admonishment would be unpopular, plus I noticed that almost without fail it happens when people quote the Bible.
- indiejade 17y agoFair enough. I agree the numbers could be interesting. But it's quite different if you want to see users' names. Well, a name is just a variable. If that variable can be correlated to a group status of another value within a social network, it can reveal patterns about social dynamics and even things about viral distribution of certain prominent ideas / memes / buzz-worthy topics. It is interesting how, for example, the Google zeitgeist works, or the "trending topics" on Twitter. There are big pipes and there are small pipes, but in the oligopoly of mainstream media, it is only a select few who control the flow of data. P.S. By "mainstream media," I mean the conglomerates who control the major networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and the other free airwaves that don't require a cable subscription payment every month.