zlacker

>>cmcgin+(OP)
Err... the stuff in ()'s is your own editorialized point of view. But this isn't really what I'd call hacker news in any case.

>>davidw+S
"But none of G.M.’s management miscues was so damaging to its long-term fate as the rich pensions and health care that robbed General Motors of its financial flexibility and, ultimately, of its cash.

General Motors established its pension in the “treaty of Detroit,” the five-year contract that it signed with the United Automobile Workers in 1950..."

>>cmcgin+31
You're right - there's nothing at all in there about hackers or computers or startups.

And as for the contract, presumably it was also signed by management, not just the union.

>>davidw+b1
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."

>>cmcgin+i1
What you guys don't seem to realize or take seriously is that enough of this stuff (Obama, Iran, unions, etc...) will drive the quality of the site down, just like reddit.

"Non computer" stuff is often ok if it's just some random, interesting thing that's "food for the brain", but when you get into politics and economics (at least some kinds of economics) and stuff like that, it's just poison.

>>davidw+t1
I don't see evidence of the quality going down. As far as I can tell, discussions around non-computer, non-startup posts are as high-quality as discussions in general. And the vast majority of troll/spam/flamejunk I run across here has already been killed.

>>gruseo+m6
I think the quality is lower, and I include in that my own contributions to those debates.

The other thing is: if you want to discuss the election, or Iran, or Iraq, or unions, or the economy, you can do that on just about every forum on the internet. But if you want to discuss, say, VC-backed vs bootstrapped businesses, or how much stock an eighth employee should get, or [I dunno, insert third example here], there are very few places where you'll find a critical mass of people who know what they're talking about.