I like to explain my downvotes when the downvoted post is not an obvious troll.
'Relevant' linking is an art and in this case it was artfully done. You don't want to ruin the punchline, if any, as if done correctly the juxtaposition of the thread you go from to the relevant new thread should hopefully create something tangential, underlined or poignant.
This link was relevant, funny & poignant. Adding a small commentary would have removed from the latter two. It also has something significant to say about startups.
A link like this would never have made the front page even though it tangentially says something important about entrepreneurial success (something that successful entrepreneurs too-often choose to forget).
Startups should print this out and stick it on their wall.
It is the posts that cause me to redefine my understanding of subjects that primarily receive my upvotes.
Would you downvote a comment with just a link to a paper about the technology being discussed in the article?
Linking a comment, and linking a journal article are two very different actions. I wouldn't downvote someone who linked to a journal article, but that's still kind of a crappy comment. Give a summary of why you're linking to the article, not a chore for us to try and figure out what kind of point the commenter is attempting to make.
The fear is that without moderation, the reddit-ification of the comments will continue its steady march forward. Hence, down voting comments which don't add much
To me, one of the great things about HN is that someone can post a link without comment, and I can click that link without too much fear of being rickrolled, goatse'd, or some other mental equivalent. In this case, if I wasn't interested in looking at a cartoon, I could decide to close the tab in about the time it takes to read the poster's summary.
I certainly anticipated responses like yours and proceeded anyways, thanks for your thoughts, like it actually matters ;)