>Don't throw stones on me, but... Why on HN?
Because breaking the rules (like what "fits HN") is part of being a hacker. Or a human.
Plus, that's how social sites work. There's no "why X is on top" -- it's on top because it was voted on top.
Because breaking the rules (like what "fits HN") is part of being a hacker. Or a human.
Plus, that's how social sites work. There's no "why X is on top" -- it's on top because it was voted on top.
This sounds like justification for having no rules. I don't know if that's a good idea.
>Plus, that's how social sites work. There's no "why X is on top" -- it's on top because it was voted on top.
This is fair enough, I think.
In any event, R.I.P. Robin Williams!
Does it seem like some general anarchy has erruped on HN, and literary all kinds of posts have been voted on top?
I don't think so: it's just some rule-bending when HN voters feel like it.
I mean, if we were to really discuss this on a substancial level you'd also have to justify what is so great about following rules in the first place. After all, people have been following stupid rules (including laws) for ages.
I'd certainly also have to justify having this conversation with you. I can't do that, so thanks anyway.