However, what I see in that thread are valid criticisms. The article and author were self promoting the author's expertise in UX -- with the promotion rather more prominent than the article content. Meanwhile, aside from the, um, "self aggrandizement", the site violated cardinal UX rules.
Readers called him on it without using faux polite weasel words, and he says he'll fix it.
Pretty sure constructive feedback is what submitting your own material to HN is for.
That discussion lacks basic civility. A good half of comments there is not something that their authors would've been willing (or have guts) to say to guy's face. Hilariously, they are in fact being mean.
Using that as a metric is silly. Is that too mean?
...which admittedly doesn't have a great discussion, but it's not worthless.
The one you linked, though, is worth highlighting as a completely useless discussion, due to some meanness (mild as it goes), but mostly just a sad lack of thoughtful commenters, all of whom seemed to think several dozen redundant comments about the OP's headshot on his blog post was valuable feedback.
I didn't see any discussion whatsoever on the actual content of the OP.
It's more likely it's the other link that's posted - the official FB Feed announcement.