What's predictable is intrinsically uninteresting. The OP partly redeems itself by offering concrete ideas, though, which gives the article a bit more substance than usual.

Information theory aside, I don't agree. Observing repeated patterns of failure and error is very instructive, especially since restatements often help me see it in a better light.

If anything, HN trends heavily towards repetitions of survivor bias. Much more fun to read cool papers and imagine yourself implementing them. But the fellow on the chariot with the red-painted face still needs an attendant whispering "remember, thou art mortal" over and over.