3 ms·
Thank you for the transparency here. Can I respectfully suggest that, in the future, consensus among HN readers is not always sufficient to judge whether certa
by patio11 13y ago
Thank you for the transparency here.
Can I respectfully suggest that, in the future, consensus among HN readers is not always sufficient to judge whether certain facts about nature are actually true or not? I don't know whether it's the fault of our Chinese not being as good as this gentleman's English or just a bum draw on software security commenters today, but my read of this thread is few people understand the claim well enough to state whose what is at risk, to say nothing about judging its severity.
- dang 13y ago> consensus among HN readers is not always sufficient to judge No question that's true. I'm painfully aware of it. Moderating the front page is a guessing game. We're not experts in everything (or, if it comes to that, anything), so we guess wrong. But we always welcome correction. If we thought the article was false, we would have buried it. The reason we penalized it was rather because it spent several hours getting upvoted in part (I surmise) because of the sensationalism of the original article, which is mostly what people were complaining about. We put a moderate penalty on the article as a way of rebalancing that, and also because several other things about this article seem (<-- that's another guess) a bit below the usual standard. If this is wrong, I'm happy to reverse the decision.