News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lies. Damned Lies. P-value thresholds by sdwr on Tuesday December 31, 2024 @08:31PM (#42563246)
This piece is basically set up to fail. It's historical, based on math, and doesn't venture towards any drama or stakes. I can easily imagine it being a farticle on a third-rate SEO webzine.

So why does it work okay as a New Yorker piece? How is their writing consistently good?

I think their secret sauce is the (implied) perspective. The impression that the author has a unique, complete, accurate take on the subject, and is letting you in on it piece by piece, in a meandering way.

Re:Lies. Damned Lies. P-value thresholds by tucnak on Tuesday December 31, 2024 @09:38PM (#42563535)
You're exactly right: what you refer to as "perspective" is easily faked.
Re:Lies. Damned Lies. P-value thresholds by martindale on Wednesday January 01, 2025 @01:48AM (#42564394)
Astroturf on HN. Never thought I'd see the day.
Re:Lies. Damned Lies. P-value thresholds by sdwr on Friday January 03, 2025 @08:46PM (#42591532)
Yes I'm a shill for big "New Yorker magazine". You are so smart how did you figure it out.