Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
81–87 of 87 posts
Re: Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
#82- If it has the word "quantum" in it, I almost always click it. I like things that are too technical for me. I really enjoy challenging scientific/ mathmatical articles, they are fascinating & humbling at the same time.
- certainly click on very specific programming language links, especially languages that I don't use. I am curious, and try to expose myself to a wide range of languages.
- won't read anything from certain domains, anything of questionable quality or click-baity/ tabloidy, eg. buzzfeed.com. Also, go on rants in comments about said questionable websites & how mad it makes me we are driving traffic & ad revenue to those jerks :p
- will click on the latest iteration of "MLS tutorial for beginners". I AM the right audience, and am highly interested in the applications of training models.
Basically I use HN to learn about things I don't know. I try to expand my horizons, and glean any useful knowledge or information I can from people way smarter and experienced than me.
Re: Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
#83I like articles about interesting programming concepts or historical tidbits. Stuff that helps me learn C or just general computing stuff better. Articles about behind the scenes development of different software. Stuff about biology or chemistry. Sometimes the weird historical pieces that get added here. I've learned a lot of different obscure historical things from hn.
Re: Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
#84Re: Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
#85Re: Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
#86Such links seem to me to be usually publicity-seeking rather than information-providing.
Re: Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on?
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was wrong with my comment? It's valid criticism of HN readers; it's perfectly substantive.
Cheap meta drama and overgeneralization is not substantive.