Hopping to more generic subjects makes threads less interesting, because the larger a topic is, the fewer unpredictable things there are to say about it. Even if one comment manages to say something unpredictable, the replies quickly revert to predictable things. The most-commonly-repeated arguments have accrued so much mass that no discussion can resist their pull. Therefore, one rule that has developed on HN over the years is to resist generic tangents: they are antithetical to curiosity. Curiosity likes to look around and see something new and specific; generic tangents are powered by emotional energy that wants to talk about something old and familiar.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Edit: This is a medium-is-the-message thing. A large, flat, open forum like HN can't discuss generic topics well, because of the mass effect I mentioned above. For such discussions to be interesting requires longer (for depth) and more individual (to stay on track) genres. An essay at least, if not a book.
That's about 0.0000003 chance.
Isn't there a base rate? If anyone does something anything new that's as big as visiting Paris while coming from Japan, then I'd venture to guess that 1 in 6 million will get a psychiatric disorder. I mean, the chance is so low that I dare to guess that it might be the base rate.
But yeah this only justifies a wikipedia article because we have memed it because it is funny.