zlacker

Not once you control for risk, though. "When you get away with it" is a big assumption.

>>dang+(OP)
You could 100% edit any post you want here and replace it with a link to a funny YouTube video and call it a fat-finger typo and get away with it. There’s no risk for you (as long as you don’t try it too often).

>>paulco+tR
That would be reckless. We must estimate risk differently.

Btw the more accurate reason why we don't do things like that is that we don't want to because it would feel bad. It's not who we want to be. However, the actual reason doesn't always have much persuasive power and when I'm sensing that's the case, I use the cynical argument ("not in our interests", basically), because it's also true. But as the cynical argument isn't persuading you, maybe I should switch back!

>>dang+bt1
I mean I’m confident we have 100% different views for “who we want to be.”

This site is a marketing campaign for a VC company. If you see it the same way, I’d be shocked.

>>paulco+zR1
YC's a business and operates HN in the end for business reasons*. I don't have a problem with calling that marketing, but I'm puzzled why you bring that up in this context.

* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...