The 139 contrast errors are all the headers "jshprentz" "12 minutes ago" not having enough contrast.
That "12 minutes ago" has insufficient contrast is still a valid critique from an accessibility standpoint, even if the design choice seems reasonable at first. There will be sight-impaired people who struggle to consume those "age" snippets, as opposed to perceiving them as legible but de-emphasized.
I don't think the point was that they didn't matter, but structurally, it is 2 errors repeated 70 times as opposed to 140 distinct errors- might even just be one if they are lumped together as "post label" rather than "name" and "time".
HN has always had horrible UX and no desire to fix it. This tracks and does not excuse the original site at all.
> HN has always had horrible UX and no desire to fix it.
I thought the other day that's their way of discouraging new users, thereby slowing down the local Eternal September.