HN has a reputation among some[who?][weasel words] as a place where many commenters are some combination of pedantic, overly literal and out of touch with mainstream culture. Taking this metaphor to pieces would seem to check the first 2 boxes pretty neatly.

You actually make it sound bad. I would more likely to say they are precise and usually won't allow for inaccurate information to fly through the front page without pointing out the issues.

Let me use another metaphor to describe why some of us more "common folk" roll our eyes when we see objections like this prominent in the comments: while HN doesn't seem to miss the forest for the trees, it often seems as or more interested in focusing on a few individual trees than discussing the forest.

I don't think the correctness or incorrectness of the scale of the metaphor really changes the way the whole article reads. Yet it's the first discussion piece I see in the comments on HN, and that doesn't surprise me a bit.

That said, it's a known quirk of the site and not a problem in my mind. I don't hate the tendency even it does cause a regular eye roll from me.

There is definitely a culture of contrarianism on HN; there is a tendency for some users here to play devil's advocate or just argue against the logic of any article for the sake of feeling superior or clever. I'll probably get downvoted for this comment, but doesn't change the reality. And most of us are probably guilty of blending in with that culture here occasionally, while others seem to thrive on it.

See guys, this is why we don't get invited to parties...

We'll just have to hold our own shindig, with educational flash cards and nature documentaries.

So you'd have us call out every metaphor, turn of phrase, expression, hyperbole, etc., because it's imprecise or ambiguous?

Hyperbole, yes. Hyperbole is what's ruining the world today. Metaphors if they're really bad, sculpting intuition that's off by orders of magnitude.

"Hyperbole is what's ruining the world today."

Well played.

+1 It's the reason I turn up.

Yup. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

I think they mean the tendency to take a statement and apply maths or logic to show that it is incorrect (or less frequently, correct).

I regularly do this (to the frustration of those around me) and I think there is a strong correlation between enjoying hacker news and having this personality trait.

No, the point is not simply using math to show something is wrong. It's using math to show something that doesn't need to be 100% correct to convey the desired meaning is wrong. It's pedantry to the point of wondering if the person responding has ever actually had a conversation with a human being that didn't involve a keyboard. If someone hears an elephant/mosquito metaphor in this context and starts doing math instead of simply taking it for what it is - a hyperbolic way of saying "this thing is really, really big/impressive/well-funded/whatever, and this other thing is... the opposite," that's a level of social awkwardness and borderline autism that is simply unnecessary in any discussion.

Okay, DDG is a hyena and not a mosquito. Great. Tell me how that changes the meaning of the article, or the strength of the facts used, or its conclusions, or the credibility of the author.

> What does this mean?

It means comments around here have a tendency to be overly pedantic and critical.

"I found a small detail in an irrelevant anecdote that is wrong (or more likely, that I misunderstood completely), therefore your entire argument is suspect and you're bad and you should feel bad."

HN comments have a tendency to obsess about almost irrelevant details. Exact, precise dictionary definitions of words clearly being used in context to mean something not exact matching the dictionary. Arguments over whether passing a pointer counts as pass by value or pass by reference. Taking metaphors and going off on numerical tangents that don't add anything to the meaning or discussion.

HN comments suffer from these and more.

Do you consider the difference between a mosquito and a goose to be "almost irrelevant"?

Let's take a look here. The message being communicated was "google is much much larger than duckduckgo". Metaphor used carried that information. Communication achieved.

What's this about a goose and a mosquito? What's that adding to the communication? Seems pretty irrelevant.

I think it adds a lot. Comparing an elephant and a mosquito makes it seem like the mosquito is almost non-existent. A goose compared to an elephant is much more significant. A goose can stand up to an elephant. [1]

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CURzgw60bFY

LOL - in a metaphorical / rhetorical contest, yes, the difference is irrelevant. What matters is the sense of overwhelming difference between the elephant and <insert most common animals or insects>.

In this context — absolutely. Alas, the worrying trend I see more and more lately that people start to have trouble seeing context of anything. Sometimes it can be amusing, sometimes it looks dangerous.

"That's the most, hacker-newsyist comment I've ever read.""