I disagree.
Negative results are important.
Null results are of very limited interest. The two are worlds apart.
A null result simply means you tried something and it didn't work. But you don't know why. You haven't proven it didn't work. There are literally millions of reasons why something might not work. For instance, you could try to use compound X to cure disease Y, observe no effect, and conclude that X doesn't cure Y. But what if somewhere in the process of making X you made an uncaught mistake and you instead used X'?
A negative result means that you tried something and you came to the proven conclusion it doesn't work. This is, crucially, as hard to obtain as a positive result. In my example, it would imply a much longer process than simply "apply X, see no effect in Y, make a few robustness checks, done".
You could say "Well, publish the null anyway, somebody will catch the mistake". Unlikely. There are already so many papers out there that keeping up is impossible. If we were publishing also null results this number will grow tenfold at the very least. Nobody could possibly check everything. They will see a paper "X doesn't cure Y" and call it knowledge, stifling a possible cure virtually forever.
Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps. But I think HN prizes itself to be a scientifically minded community, and thus it has a mandate to use terms correctly. Confusing "null" with "negative" is a sin.
I hope one day I'll find a way to strongly and passionately argue against the "null results are as important as positive results" position. It is a bad meme. Charitably, I consider it most of the times a honest mistake. But sometimes it gives me the impression it is a cheap trick used by people to erode the reputation of academia.