The alternative is to register the pathology as known, considered, addressed, and ... not of particular interest in the current context.

dang's post attempts to do this. HN has poor tools for surfacing such actions and intentions (it has poor tools in a large number of ways, but the very tool paucity also creates, at times, some useful positive dynamics).

Sometimes you want low friction, sometimes you want high friction.

A wheel, particularly in the flanged steel-on-rail or rubber tyre-on-road varieties, is a device for offering exceptionally low friction and resistance in one dimension, and very high resistance in another. Among the results of such a dynamic is the property, literally, of keeping a vehicle on track.

I think HN's quirks of high- and low-affordance capabilties operate somewhat in this nature.

The argument is that going on about it in every single Wolfram thread is just as quickly "repetitive and boring" and worse, makes it impossible to actually talk about whatever it is that Wolfram is writing about. It's hardly ignoring if everyone already knows about it and the chances of anyone saying anything new and interesting on the topic is just about nil.

There's an argument, sure, but you're basically arguing against the entire concepts of politics and perspective.

I dunno, if people weren't so bored of fact checkers pointing out lies, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.