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.
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.
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 :-)
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 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.
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?
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.
http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/
Discussion (589 points, 189 comments):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5326511
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.
----
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
>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/
The article itself was in fact delightful once I zoomed out a bunch.
> 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
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.
Have you seen cases where timing mattered more than the message itself?
> 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
> An opinionated comment or personal anecdote.
Counter opinion or added nuance. [1]
[1] A link for support or to demonstrate a counterexample.
A niche reference almost no one gets, except one