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.
Comment asking the previous commenter in a passive aggressive manner whether they had actually read the article, without providing any further context or counter to the argument made.
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.
Fox News used to be awful in this respect, with ledes such as "(Important thing) happens in (unnamed city)". Now they name the city. So that trick apparently backfired. It seems to have died out, along with "One weird trick..." articles.
New York Times opinion articles, though, have become worse. Today, "This May Be the Most Important Medical Story of the Decade". It's not.
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.
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 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.
A link to the HN discussion from when this was already posted here 6 months ago, possibly to be helpful, but also possibly as an attempt to admonish others for not knowing this is a repost.
A related comment to mention the perceived good performance of the website and how the web would be much better if such simple and performant designs were more prevalent.
A second paragraph vaguely taking aim at every common framework and library used and why they're all the real fundamental problem.
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.
I guess I am too honest to go down the click-bait title stuff. I would love to get more traffic too my web site, but not this way. I prefer to write up interesting hardware of software projects, but i'm in the middle of writing another sci-fi epic and there are only so many projects you can juggle :-)
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?
"If Educational Videos Were Filmed Like Music Videos" - Tom Scott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G025oxyWv0E
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.
A bad faith response that attempts to derail the conversation from the original article.
A snarky and insulting joke where the above commenter is the butt of the joke, calling attention to the bad faith response.
Nitpicky reply questioning the adherence of OP's comment to HN guidelines.
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.
A random reply hours later, long after the post has left the front page
> 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.
Comment asking the previous commenter in a passive aggressive manner whether they had actually read the article, without providing any further context or counter to the argument made.
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.
In other words, clickbait.
Fox News used to be awful in this respect, with ledes such as "(Important thing) happens in (unnamed city)". Now they name the city. So that trick apparently backfired. It seems to have died out, along with "One weird trick..." articles.
New York Times opinion articles, though, have become worse. Today, "This May Be the Most Important Medical Story of the Decade". It's not.
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 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.
> followed by an allegation that Hacker News is turning into Reddit.
A reminder that saying Hacker News is turning into Reddit is explicitly against the rules here, delivered in an unnecessarily condescending manner.
A schtick that is at least as old as the internet, revitalised for new audiences who think it is brilliantly original, to make the author look clever.
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.
An obvious attempt to insert a link into my own vibe-coded project, in the pretense it is either relevant or related.
A scathing review of the project in one or two sentences. With no help or improvements to offer.
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.
A comment that takes a second to realize it’s a troll.
A link to the HN discussion from when this was already posted here 6 months ago, possibly to be helpful, but also possibly as an attempt to admonish others for not knowing this is a repost.
A complaint asking what this has to do with hackers or hacking.
A mildly annoyed reply quoting the Hacker News Guidelines to point out that:
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups.
A note of gratitude from a first time poster who tries to take some credit by saying they have always felt the same way
A niche reference almost no one gets, except one.
A comment haughtily linking to the original appearance of said reference.
An opinion about the design of the website.
A related comment to mention the perceived good performance of the website and how the web would be much better if such simple and performant designs were more prevalent.
A second paragraph vaguely taking aim at every common framework and library used and why they're all the real fundamental problem.
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
I guess I am too honest to go down the click-bait title stuff. I would love to get more traffic too my web site, but not this way. I prefer to write up interesting hardware of software projects, but i'm in the middle of writing another sci-fi epic and there are only so many projects you can juggle :-)
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/
A question that was addressed in the 3rd paragraph of the article
A subtle counterpoint from paragraph seven (7)
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 sentence remarking this concept was implemented in a different media.
----
Title of the song
Naive expression of love
Reluctance to accept that you are gone
Request to turn back time and rectify my wrongs
Repetition of the title of the song
A comment not about the article, but rather about the perceived quality of the HN comments.
This seems like a useful reference when asking AI to create content for you, despite the irony
An expression of surprise and appreciation that the author, an expert in his field, is actually a HN participant.
I for one am not playing along
I did enjoy this, though. Even the title worked.
A comment pointing out that this submission and/or comment section break the HN rules, which are selectively ignored by the VC mods.
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.
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.
...sheesh.
A heavily downvoted comment from a new account registered specifically to comment on this link.
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?