Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What 4chan thinks of HN

rbt.asia

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 265 posts

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#71

Post by joeblau »

This is one of the most accurate parodies of this site. I still love reading HN, but I'm doing more work now, so I don't have as much time to comment, but I'm sure that I've seen every one of those 4chan titles in some form or another over my 2 year tenure.

Edit: I didn't see any framework battle posts...

  ▲ 200 points Why Angular is better than Ember
  ▲ 200 points Why Ember is better than Angular

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#72

Post by moot »

GhotiFish wrote: post #64
hn_has_piqued wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Shame about the captcha. you were never on 4chan before captchas, were you?

I was. At least before that bot hit that copied a random file from someone's document folder and uploaded it along with another copy of the bot to 4chan. That was hilarious. I still have an archive of those files somewhere.

https://gyp.blogs.balabit.com/2009/03/anon-youve-been-infctd...

I think this was my "We've made it!" moment with 4chan. When people are writing viruses tailored to your service, you've clearly done something right.

...Or wrong.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#73

Post by GhotiFish »

moot wrote: post #65
GhotiFish wrote: post #46

4chan's commenting system is simultaneously more annoying, and more enjoyable to use. The backtrack style lets you follow conversations, but it doesn't become a nested nightmare. Backtracks also highlight comments of importance or significance. the Reddit/HN system is hunting the most valuable comments through democracy, but it throws that work out because of its visible tree structure. People can ride the top post.…

I loathe nested comments and vastly prefer inline quote previews and backlinks. Then again, I'm biased.

mfw.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#75

Post by Bahamut »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #53
_l4lu wrote: post #43

How could they have left out the patronizing irrelevant [0] links [1] to Wikipedia [2] in all the wannabe-academic [3] comments with references[4]? (and yes, references must be 0-based [5]) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_resource_locator [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation [5…

Parodies are usually funny because they're true. The citations in HN comments are some of the most valuable contributions to the site. This whole post is depressing. Far from lighthearted fun, these comments all have an undercurrent of hostility ("wannabe-academic"). The mosaic formed by these comments imply pg has harmed the world by creating HN. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Imagine where you'd be fo…

I think 4chan has harmed the world a lot more than HN shrug.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#76

Post by mpyne »

angersock wrote: post #59
mehmehshoe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I was in tears by the third Stallman posting. It looks like he was posting the same things in other threads as well. Stallman spamming

There are actually rampaging Stallman bots that will post those. It's pretty great, actually. New startup idea: Stallman-as-a-service.

> Stallman-as-a-service.

Just make sure the backend is Affero GPL. ;)

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#77

Post by chrismonsanto »

angersock wrote: post #59
mehmehshoe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I was in tears by the third Stallman posting. It looks like he was posting the same things in other threads as well. Stallman spamming

There are actually rampaging Stallman bots that will post those. It's pretty great, actually. New startup idea: Stallman-as-a-service.

The API endpoint is an e-mail address, and you send a request by e-mailing it a link to a JSON file. Said JSON is read by downloading it with wget.

If you're interested, please read our ToS here: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developer...

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#78

Post by marincounty »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #21
011011100 wrote: post #8

There are a lot people on this forum who seem to think they're absolutely right about some convention or way of life and that they're entitled to attention (ie they believe their take is actually insightful). This describes the "I did or think X, and you should also think or do X" threads.

I think the business of being an entrepreneur selects for such traits. The whole notion of "disruption" that is central to so many of the ideas floating on HN, is rooted in the arrogance necessary to make them work.

I have found that if a person calls themself an Entrepreneur; they usually have delusions of grandeur--and hide behind that title. They go through life wondering why no one wants them around. Kinda pathetic.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#79

Post by hnriot »

hayksaakian wrote: post #57
_l4lu wrote: post #43

How could they have left out the patronizing irrelevant [0] links [1] to Wikipedia [2] in all the wannabe-academic [3] comments with references[4]? (and yes, references must be 0-based [5]) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_resource_locator [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation [5…

Wikipedia links as references in comments are helpful Initially, I thought you were referring to the "Submission is a link to a wikipedia article"

how so? google makes linking to wikipedia rather irrelevant. Although of course it's the very linking to wikipedia (et al) that makes google so good.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#80

Post by krapp »

hn_has_piqued wrote: post #70
moot wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loathe nested comments and vastly prefer inline quote previews and backlinks. Then again, I'm biased.

>Then again, I'm biased. That's an understatement. But seriously, I agree with everything you stand for in regards to how internet discussion should work. Flat discussion is vastly superior, even when weighing the negatives

The only time i've ever seen threading really work well is when it only includes the headers, like with email or newsreader clients, and there's a separate frame altogether for the text (which makes it in essence follow a flat style.)

But threading the text as well just makes long discussions difficult to follow and unreadable as the margin starts to get cramped.

Which on HN is apparently part of the reason they do it the way they do.

Post reply on HN