The argument about politics here is that it is more important than most tech discussions, so could easily crowd out the tech and 'interesting' (but perhaps kind of obscure) articles.

For instance a discussion about Ukraine... what happens there is life-or-death for thousands of people.

It's tough to look away from it right now though. At nearly 50, I still think tech is fun and interesting, but I'm getting to an age where I want to leave a better world for my kids and it looks like what they'll actually get is perhaps much worse than what I grew up with.

Not thousands of people. Millions of people. At least.

In theory, yes. In practice I rarely see more than one topic on the front page a day. It's still about popularity among the audience, and of course HN's own algorithms (and dang) tend to do a good job of avoiding multiple like-minded topics being scattered out like Reddit does.

There is a huge amount of relentless work from 'dang' and others moderating the site. That's a big reason you don't see that stuff.

I don't know, but this temporary restraining order doesn't tell you anything new about the question.

Except it does. A TRO means the judge believes it likely that your case has merit and will win and that there is irreparable public harm without a TRO.

It's the opinion of a single judge, before a trial has occurred. It has some meaning, but just last week a different judge said the opposite in a related case (as the article notes), so clearly, opinions will vary.

Must we have blaring headlines and political flamefests every time a judge issues an intermediate ruling related to DOGE?

Yes. Because of the second part of what is required for a TRO. Irreparable public harm.

It should be news worthy

"Irreparable harm"...IF AND ONLY IF the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and there is determined to be harm from the behavior. Neither of which has actually occurred yet.

All the judge has done is to decree that:

a) her opinion is that the plaintiffs are "likely to" prevail, and

b) you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, so it makes sense to pause the behavior in question while trial is pending.

You're getting worked up over theoretical outcomes. TROs happen all the time, even in cases where the eventual outcome is in favor of the defendants.

>Must we have blaring headlines and political flamefests every time a judge issues an intermediate ruling related to DOGE?

I believe that's how case ruling posts commonly work on HN (plenty of "the case may proceed" with tech company news), so I don't see why not. The whole process of law is slow so it's nigh impossible for it to flood HN.