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.