Scan all the last day’s post titles.
Open links immediately with what I believe to be content-rich credible information and perspective relevant to my background and interests, which are many and varied. Source plays a helpful role in determining whether it’s worth an open, but isn’t the sole determinant. Maybe one in thirty.
Read the comments on posts with titles that sound like agitprop, knee-jerkism, marketing or just biased nonsense. Then open the post if
1. it isn’t already objectively trashed and
2. it is impactfully misleading and
3. I may be able to contribute something of substantive value to correct or redirect the post or discussion.
Contribute if I can, otherwise silence is Golden. Getting angry at pixels always seemed silly to me...
More interested in the meta-analysis of why posts are being posted, and the reasoning (or lack of) underlying the post. Where are we in discussion boards like this in the year 2020: posts, audience, moderation, etc.? I cruised ARPANET and punched cards...so where are we in 2020 on HN as compared to USENET, BBSs, GEnie, Compuserve, The Well, mailing lists, blogs, Reddit...
Skip most (but not all) posts on current practice in programming, design, testing, implementation. When I was most active, change control was the brand new concept. I am very old. Open links on legacy systems and ideas.
Skip almost all posts with a living or cultish name in them, unless it is someone who just died and I knew of. Will read a post on Bill Gates’s death, but not anything before...of course hoping that will be a long way in the future. It’s all dust in the wind, folks.