no it isn't. this is definitely significant.

even if putin crushes prigozhin and consolidates his power, that is still significant. there is no way this isn't significant.

unless you believe that it is literally all made up, but russian media is reporting on it. that seems idiotically unlikely.

There are certain stories where it's better for HN to not be about that. This feels like one of them to me; I'm happy to be wrong if the story turns out otherwise, but the current reports are far too politicized to evaluate objectively.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/24/vladimir-putin...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/23/russia-uk...

For example, that story was less likely to degrade into flamewar; this one is highly likely to. That story, although morbid, had more entry points for intellectually interesting conversation than this one. That story was closer to HN's sweet spot topic-wise; this one is far from it. That story was likely to be accurately reported because it wasn't high-stakes politically; precisely the opposite for this one. That story was less likely to get dominated by predictable talking points and pre-existing opinions [1]; this story is likely to get little else. And so on.

There's a higher-level consideration too: it isn't a good idea for HN to be too consistent. That would be predictable, predictability is uninteresting, and we're trying to optimize for the opposite [2]. The best strategy is the other way around: try to be unpredictable from any sequence [3]. So any time you see $foo-story-1, $foo-story-2, for any value of $foo, it's best to steer away from $foo-story-3. I know this is frustrating for people who prefer formal, predictable rules, but it's good for curiosity to frustrate that particular preference (within tolerable limits).

It's also frustrating for people who have legit reasons to care deeply about $foo-story-3, and that's a different phenomenon—I empathize with that feeling and it's not something we're doing on purpose. Such topics exist for every reader, so everyone ends up getting frustrated in this way. Hopefully it evens out in the long run.

[1] (we did get predictable raging against corner-cutting billionaires, but that was about it)

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Oh, it's sensational, is it? Well, yes, I suppose a coup that ends a bloody war (that is contributing, if only ideologically, to the crippling economic policies all over The West) would be rather sensational, wouldn't it?

Edit: Related question, why can I vouch for some flagged comments, but not for others? Edit: Think I figured that out. Vouch is only for dead, not just flagged?

The team here is small so a lot of the decisions are indeed unilateral. We don't all keep the same hours.

> Vouch is only for dead

Correct!

That said - at this stage, the events definitely do appear to be quite significant.

Per the British MoD: "This represents the most significant challenge to the Russian state in recent times."

(I don't believe they exist.)

Moreover: if you think a post was unfairly flagged, you can email mods ([email protected]) and request that flags be suspsended.

Mods can make the call to reinstate a post or let it stand, and I suspect in this case the flags might remain. But occasional political posts (US presidential elections come to mind) and other large news events occasionally clear the hurdle.

(I email with vouches occasionally myself, with mixed results.)

At this point it is clear thing is happening ... and users flagging it are flagging it for very political reasons.