A comment complaining this was obviously written by an AI, and the standard template is a tell. A philosophical observation about what that says about the state on online discourse. Link to the Dead Internet Wikipedia page.
A poor attempt at joining the convo too late because I don't browse /new like everyone else. No one upvotes, and I question my intelligence for the 3rd time today.
> Cherry-picked quote from the article cut off too early
Bad faith argument that could only be made by not reading further into the article or cutting the quote off before it answers the exact question/argument posed here.
A comment disagreeing with the central argument, presenting factual evidence for why it’s mistaken. Downvoted for an hour before balancing back out to a score of 2.
A snide and vitriolic remark that observes on how the first paragraph actually addresses the concern of the person which hasn't read the article. A further continuation on this being representative of the state of modern online discourse.
A comment making a subtle point about something discussed in the middle of the article that languishes near the bottom of the page because nobody read the full article.
Repeat the title 3 times in the first 3 lines then again as the start of the next paragraph.
Fill the rest of the article assuming this is the readers first day on planet earth. Like, an article about a CPU architecture should start with the early history of mathematics.
Link to HN guidelines with following quote pasted below:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
Feels similar with cold email.I used to think it was mostly about better copy or subject lines, but lately it feels like timing matters way more. Same message, different moment, completely different outcome.
Have you seen cases where timing mattered more than the message itself?
A comment complaining this was obviously written by an AI, and the standard template is a tell. A philosophical observation about what that says about the state on online discourse. Link to the Dead Internet Wikipedia page.
A response appreciating the comment above for saving ones time.
This is why I built [AI slop tool]. [Self promotion link to my vibe coded startup with no users]
A poor attempt at joining the convo too late because I don't browse /new like everyone else. No one upvotes, and I question my intelligence for the 3rd time today.
> Cherry-picked quote from the article cut off too early
Bad faith argument that could only be made by not reading further into the article or cutting the quote off before it answers the exact question/argument posed here.
A comment at Hacker News which provides a nuanced critique and which gains plenty of upvotes as a lot of users agree to the comment's sentiment.
A comment disagreeing with the central argument, presenting factual evidence for why it’s mistaken. Downvoted for an hour before balancing back out to a score of 2.
A comment based on the reading of the title that could only be conceived if the commenter didn't bother to click the article at all.
A snide and vitriolic remark that observes on how the first paragraph actually addresses the concern of the person which hasn't read the article. A further continuation on this being representative of the state of modern online discourse.
A comment making a subtle point about something discussed in the middle of the article that languishes near the bottom of the page because nobody read the full article.
Repeat the title 3 times in the first 3 lines then again as the start of the next paragraph.
Fill the rest of the article assuming this is the readers first day on planet earth. Like, an article about a CPU architecture should start with the early history of mathematics.
"A Technical Blog Post by a Big Name Expert" (2013)
http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/
Discussion (589 points, 189 comments):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5326511
A complaint about the quality of posts and the comments they elicit here, followed by an allegation that Hacker News is turning into Reddit.
Reminds me of Schizopolis movie (by Steven Soderbergh):
>Fletcher Munson: [sunnily, on homecoming] Generic greeting!
>Mrs. Munson: [warmly] Generic greeting returned!
>[they kiss and chuckle at each other]
>Fletcher Munson: Imminent sustenance.
>Mrs. Munson: Overly dramatic statement regarding upcoming meal.
>Fletcher Munson: Oooh! False reaction indicating hunger and excitement!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117561/quotes/
This seems like a useful reference when asking AI to create content for you, despite the irony
A niche reference almost no one gets, except one.
A note of gratitude from a first time poster who tries to take some credit by saying they have always felt the same way
An obvious attempt to insert a link into my own vibe-coded project, in the pretense it is either relevant or related.
An opinion about the design of the website.
Link to HN guidelines with following quote pasted below:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Anyone struggle with the large font size? I can only consume about 2 lines, maybe three lines at that size before I struggle with tracking.
The article itself was in fact delightful once I zoomed out a bunch.
A question that was addressed in the 3rd paragraph of the article
A subtle counterpoint from paragraph seven (7)
A comment not about the article, but rather about the perceived quality of the HN comments.
An expression of surprise and appreciation that the author, an expert in his field, is actually a HN participant.
A false dichotomy that segments typical replies into one of two groups.
Group 1: A thinly veiled straw man that buckets everyone I disagree with, along with an attempt to appear as if I'm being unbiased
Group 2: The group I put myself in and provide better arguments for why this perspective is correct.
Vague motte and bailey statement that gives me plausible deniability when someone criticizes my analysis.
Feels similar with cold email.I used to think it was mostly about better copy or subject lines, but lately it feels like timing matters way more. Same message, different moment, completely different outcome.
Have you seen cases where timing mattered more than the message itself?
A simple statement of acknowledgement.
> a quote from the article
A link to something relevant or interesting to add or support a point [1]
An opinionated comment or personal anecdote.
[1] the link from above
A reply which references neither the parent comment nor the article, but makes a strong and likely negative statement.
>> a quote from the article
> An opinionated comment or personal anecdote.
Counter opinion or added nuance. [1]
[1] A link for support or to demonstrate a counterexample.
An uncalled-for ad hominem that serves to quickly devolve the discussion in opinionated ragebait.
Tu caca, Derrida?
ramon156 12 minutes ago | unvote | prev | next [–]
A niche reference almost no one gets, except one
An appreciative comment making the original niche poster feel seen.