3 ms·

You've only been on HN for 450 days (I've been here 2500+), I don't think you can claim HN has gone significantly downhill since you joined. IMO, this is a tro

You've only been on HN for 450 days (I've been here 2500+), I don't think you can claim HN has gone significantly downhill since you joined. IMO, this is a troll comment. If you are making a grand point, I don't see it. EDIT: I'm not replying to your point because I can't understand your point. Apparently it's obvious to you, but it is far from obvious to me what you are saying.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
I've been on the site since day two of its public launch. About 2800 days. Why did this devolve into a number comparison contest, rather than addressing my main points? EDIT: Oh, here we go. Now I'm looked down on with so much scorn that you won't even reply to me. Really? Edit wars? My point was this: The average comment is becoming shorter, meaner, and less logical. Additionally, the value of the voting system is becoming diluted over time, as more people participate. Mainly I'd like algorithmic protection from people who downvote all of your comments regardless of how well-reasoned your followup replies are. Limiting people to one downvote per person per thread seems reasonable. My thesis in the main discussion is that if you hand a job to the public sector and to the private sector, the private sector will accomplish it with fewer resources and more quickly than the public sector. The exception is with highly parallelizable tasks, like fighting a war. The counterexamples are the justice system and financial regulation, yet those are only two counterexamples compared to a huge body of examples.