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

241–250 of 265 posts

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#241

Post by city41 »

_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…

This approach took off because the markdown here does not allow for named links. Embedding those full URLs in the body of the comment is not so hot.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#242

Post by ahoge »

_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…

It's the only way to add some kind of "inline" links. It's just a side-effect of some arbitrary limitation.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#243

Post by rblatz »

Havoc wrote: post #197
neya wrote: post #61

Sadly, most of the things on there are true. We can try to deny it all we want, but most of the stuff that's there is true. The power of anonymity is that you get to voice honest opinions without tying it up with your identity and/or feeling responsible for it. Of course, this can be argued otherwise too, by citing some (bad) comments as example from that thread, but for the most part, what you see there are honest c…

They forgot the billion *.js posts - with seemingly arbitrary nouns selected as names. Or the ridiculous intentional mispellings in names...somehow skipping all the vowels & resemble some vaguely phonetic spelling. Twitter > twtr etc.

You mean stock ticker symbols?

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#244

Post by nzp »

masklinn wrote: post #175
_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…

> in all the wannabe-academic comments with references References would be unnecessary if HN comments supported such complex and over-the-top formatting as links (or escapable asterisks, for that matter, but then again who ever heard about using asterisks in a programming context?), which definitely haven't been a feature of all forum softwares since time immemorial. It does not, and posting links inline often makes…

For me, one of the best features of HN is the minimalistic interface, including lack of links. Although, I'd welcome escapable asterisks.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#245

Post by coldarchon »

emilis_info wrote: post #188
icpmacdo wrote: post #41

This one is my favourite -"Things I've learned from coding for a month" -"Ten ways to become a better programmer" - by the guy who's been coding for a month

This. These kinds of posts always make me roll my eyes. Frequently they get hundreds of upvotes. Makes me wonder about the quality of submissions from the fields I understand much less (sciences, humanities, politics, etc.).

I had already been banned here if I voiced my real thoughts about posts like this. If only 10 percent of the questions I ask these people were answered, I had hope ..

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#246

Post by thatthatis »

I love how hackernews is responding to this with confidence and humor.

It's like an avuncular old gentleman responding to a lampooning by saying "haha, jolly good joke chaps, some of that was right on the money"

I particularly appreciate the maturity and humor demonstrated by hacker news's response in stark opposition to how a lot of Internet communities (4chan, reddit) get angry when 4chan mocks them.

I like a community that is self aware of its own ridiculousness.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#247

Post by k3n »

darkmighty wrote: post #170
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.

Well, they're not mutually exclusive, reddit has both a flat 'new' and 'top' comments -- new is 4chan-like and top is hn-like with an interesting strategy with fancy nonlinear time-decaying importance. But this is of course one of those cases where they decided to make a choice, and they clearly favor the "top" structure. Honestly I think they could have meshed the two better, though.

s/they/you/

(check the user)

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#248

Post by AlexMax »

GhotiFish wrote: post #130
AlexMax wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being susceptible and unwilling to accept it makes you manipulatable. If one person cracking watermelon jokes gets under your skin, think what a psychopath with an end game pounding the drum of affirmative action can do. I'm afraid I'm not following your logic. Care to explain further?

if you react to a negative social appeal emotionally, you will react to a positive social appeal in the same manner. Basically, if I can get you to react with misogyny, I have a level of control over you.

> Basically, if I can get you to react with misogyny, I have a level of control over you.

The solution is not to innoculate yourself against emotional response. Trust, but verify. Be emotional and empathetic, but do your homework and don't be a sucker.

Such an approach would allow yourself to empathize with the targets of bigotry without exposing yourself to the hypothetical psychopathic affirmative action boogeyman. And I am far more afraid of decades of social justice being undone by the normalization of bigoted attitudes in society than I am of a few scheming manipulative social justice warriors.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#249

Post by rz2k »

masklinn wrote: post #175
_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…

> in all the wannabe-academic comments with references References would be unnecessary if HN comments supported such complex and over-the-top formatting as links (or escapable asterisks, for that matter, but then again who ever heard about using asterisks in a programming context?), which definitely haven't been a feature of all forum softwares since time immemorial. It does not, and posting links inline often makes…

One might even say that inline links is the primary feature of hypertext.

That said, I've come to like the footnotes.

Re: What 4chan thinks of HN

#250

Post by sampo »

_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…

> all the wannabe-academic [3] comments

Don't you think some of the commenters might actually be academic, not wannabes?

Post reply on HN