zlacker

>>dang+(OP)
"A workaround exists, it's the user's fault for not knowing it" is terrible interaction design.

Having links on the site fail arbitrarily devalues the entire page. Users aren't stopping and thinking "hey, is clicking this link going to waste my time?" - which results in the entire system being perceived as less reliable and trustworthy.

I agree that such discussions are off-topic, but is there a better way to handle these articles than "RTFM, noob"?

>>cat9+x2
You're quoting things I didn't say. The snark-amplification mechanism of putting the most uncharitable spin you can possibly think of on someone's remarks is one of the worsts you can do in comments here. I spend a lot of time asking users not to do it to other users.

Of course the paywalls suck. Is there any user who has to deal with more of these annoyances than we ourselves do? There can't be many.

The question is the lesser of two evils. Anyone who doesn't get what a disaster it would be for HN to lose the NYT, WSJ, Economist, and New Yorker doesn't get HN in the first place.

>>dang+J2
Thanks for the ad hominem response, it really reminds me what's great about this site.

>>cat9+e3
I don't think it was ad hominem, but it's possible that I misinterpreted your comment as snarkier than you meant it. If so, I'm sorry.

>>dang+t5
The ad hominem was "doesn't get HN in the first place". It's very dismissive of people who disagree with you. And it's not the first time you've responded like this.

I don't get it? No, you don't get it.