> Ah, the classic "aPpLe cAn dO nO wRoNg" comment from a thread full of nothing but Apple lovers.
Hey, this is an awful comment from someone who has been on HN long enough to know better. That random capitalization thing is a cheap form of sneering, as well as being a tired old internet trope, and the whole comment breaks this guideline:
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
This site is only a place where people want to participate because most people make the effort to do better than this. Please do your part to push the standards up rather than drag them down.
So, are you also going to do anything about the top comment being fake news? It literally says something completely that is not true. Minus the "sneering", I think the validity of my comment remains.
Please don’t try to deflect from your own disrespectful conduct with this kind of “are you going to...?” goading. We don’t moderate on the basis of such charged qualitative judgments as “fake news”. We uphold the guidelines. If someone is wrong, point out how they are wrong, in the conversational style the guidelines clearly call for. Doing it in this sneering and hostile way only weakens your point and trashes this place.
You can still moderate comments without insulting people, you know? You accused me of deflection for...asking you about the parent comment? You could have still made your point without that accusation. Or maybe dang has set the bar too high that this is new to me.
(Edit: I just saw the post where you were introduced as a mod by YC, sorry for suspecting you were a bot)
You were asked to keep to the guidelines just a few weeks ago, particularly relating to making swipes at the community, and you committed to doing so: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47243319. We wouldn't be having this interaction if you had kept to that commitment, nor if you had respectfully heeded the reminder I posted. This place only continues to exist because enough other people conduct themselves respectfully.
Sure, I admit I wasn't aware the alternate caps was even a thing in the guideline. If you go into my comment history further, I've done it way more times, but never been flagged before (which is why I wasn't aware it was against the guidelines). Also, I didn't insult the community in my comment (please show me where?). I just pointed out that OP was conveniently choosing to ignore certain key facts in the original article just to craft a narrative - I'm sure you know this, but many people here own Apple stock and sometimes they have a conflict of interest, which really irritates me when they don't disclose and do such shady stuff.
But, let's leave that aside - isn't what you're doing now exactly considered as the very deflection you accused me of, earlier (deflection)? ie. I pointed out something you were wrong about - you just went into pointing out something I did in the past that was wrong instead of addressing my core point - that you didn't have to insult me to enforce the guidelines. You could have done so, without.
Again, as you have found out, I've interacted with dang, I don't know what happened to them, but I never was insulted by them before - despite consecutive flags (and I never repeated those mistakes).
Hey, this kind of defiant strutting is not cool. It's fine to disagree with the article, and you don't owe the author anything, but you owe this community better if you want to participate here. HN is only a place where people like to participate because we have clear guidelines and many people who make the effort each day to uphold them. It's not OK to disrespect this community by acting as if the guidelines don't apply to you. A particular pattern in your comments is using capitalization for emphasis, which is explicitly against the guidelines. Please take a moment to remind yourself of the guidelines and take care to observe them in future.
WTF? This is not an acceptable comment on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. This style of commenting is not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Dan and I are full time YC employees and other engineers at YC do plenty to keep HN running. HN’s software is continually developed to handle growth in traffic, along with abuse, spam, and (particularly recently) bots and generated content. The lack of new UI features is not due to lack of resources/investment but because it’s always been the HN way to maintain a minimalist design and for the content and discussions to be the primary feature.
I think the minimalist design is good. But hasn't the font size decreased over time in practice? When HN was first created, the average monitor had a much lower resolution, which made text appear larger. Now I think it's quite difficult to read compared to other websites. Obviously it's easily solved by zooming, but I think it would make sense to adjust for the change in resolutions over the years
Of course, and part of my reason for being brought onto the team full time is to explore ways we can develop HN for the future. That doesn't mean that every 3rd-party HN project represents a feature that should be added to the core HN UI.
I didn't know, and I thought only @dang was working on HN. You must agree that at least some basic features, like a dark theme and indicators for new comments, could be easily handcrafted or implemented with coding agents!
It's not a reproach at all! We do this all the time when something has appeared before on HN, so that people can look at older threads if they're interested. It's significant signal that a particular post has appeared repeatedly on HN over the nearly two decades we've existed. It's also interesting to see how the style of discussion about the topic may have changed over time.
That isn't always a simple, reliable way of finding the historical submissions of the article. Sometimes it's on a domain that has had many other submissions. Sometimes the domain has changed or the content appears in different forms in different places.
It's a longstanding convention to do this, and the audience appreciates it. Not sure why anyone would take issue with it.
It does appear a bit mechanical, like something the system would do. Maybe a submission should always automatically find all previous discussions as an automatic comment.
reply