I'm opposed to markdown for that reason. It's a bit of a shame that the existing formatting isn't aligned to markdown syntax, and I think lots of people don't know the
code trick.
But otherwise, I'm grateful to not have posts using headers, multipart essays with horizontal rules, or that "every word a hyperlink" style that people use when they want to intensify a statement by implying it's densely sourced or describing a common issue. The informal standards HN has worked out seem sufficient for the conversations I value most here:
- this is sufficient for bullets
- since people don't bullet whole paragraphs
1. this works for numbers
2. for the same reason
> And this is just fine for pseudo-blockquotes, which can be much longer.
And the lack of embedded links encourages human-readable URLs that are either sources[1], or inline links to a page people might want to visit after reading the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown
It's a bit arbitrary what's supported, but HN has always felt to me like a display of how working within constraints can improve quality.