You are completely correct I regret that word choice now. I was rushing to comment because I felt it was important to provide context on AMOC collapse scholarship.
Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening shortly by X date", but its just a statistical model :(
Don't mean to make you feel bad or call you out, most people don't read the article if it's popular. It's my attempt to give a little back to the community to note it, been here a very long time, and when people try calling it out coarsely it isn't constructive.
[1] sort of: they understood it was a statistical model but spent so much time hand-wringing about Nature publishing a statistical model that it came off like there was something wrong with the article, causing a rush of replies of "how can I trust anything??"
I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
Random ordering can also work.
(Newest first has its own issues, notably of late-hit low-value comments. But the overall effect on the thread discussion of early low-value comments is reduced.)
I'd love to see a chatmodel as a forum board moderator. They understand nuances, so it would be able to spot people just fighting or adding too much snark. A real net nanny.
HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora.
Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.