zlacker

[return to "Open secrets about Hacker News"]
1. vadfa+B[view] [source] 2021-10-28 09:38:34
>>vincen+(OP)
>readers reacted negatively, even violently, to seeing [...] stories that were placed there randomly

>HN users have an intense emotional relationship with the front page

If a "greatest 80s hits" radio station started broadcasting music from the 00s and people got pissed off you wouldn't say "listeners of this station have an intense emotional relationship with it". When they tune in to the "greatest 80s hits" station, that's the only thing they're looking for; they don't want to listen to random songs.

◧◩
2. bborud+t3[view] [source] 2021-10-28 10:12:11
>>vadfa+B
So as long as something doesn't challenge our beliefs, values, opinions or prejudices it's OK.
◧◩◪
3. have_f+94[view] [source] 2021-10-28 10:20:50
>>bborud+t3
Playing 00's music on an 80's radio station isn't challenging someone's fondness of 80's music, it's just annoying.
◧◩◪◨
4. bborud+M5[view] [source] 2021-10-28 10:35:46
>>have_f+94
I was disagreeing with the premise that Hacker News is, or should be, very narrow in scope. Though I'll grant you that there are certainly degrees to this. There are regularly posts that make me wonder why they were posted to HN when I first see them here - and yet, these often manage to enrich my day.

There are risks to making too many rules about who gets to be a member in your club.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. mindcr+9G[view] [source] 2021-10-28 14:41:07
>>bborud+M5
There are risks to making too many rules about who gets to be a member in your club.

And no risks in being too open about who gets to be a member of your club?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. bborud+nc3[view] [source] 2021-10-29 08:03:02
>>mindcr+9G
Of course there are, but it can be hard to keep in mind what one is trying to achieve. It is easy to think you are doing one thing while really living by a different set of principles.

For instance I've worked for companies (at least two) where, the set of goals for the hiring process, and what was actually practiced, were pointing in somewhat different directions. In the end it really came down to "how like us is the candidate". All while sailing under a "diversity is good" flag, being convinced that we lived our values, and (in one case) increasingly experiencing the problems stemming from a hardening monoculture. What happens when you try to resolve that situation is, to put it carefully, "interesting".

[go to top]