Re:Prigozhin starts armed insurrection in Russia
by dang on Saturday June 24, 2023 @01:07PM
(#36460561)
I see your point (and said something similar in a different comment) but at the same time, the two stories differ in ways that touch the core of what HN is about—so this isn't just an arbitrary call.
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)
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...