To me, your comment read as though he was a San Francisco author. It took another comment to figure out you meant Science Fiction.

I read entirely too much HN.

He submitted this item himself. Sneaky bastard.

I agree that fame should not be a sole qualifying attribute for getting on the front page here, but I think fame can be a qualifying factor, if used appropriately. That is, if a person is famous for being prescient in items relevant to the post, or if they are well known or respected in that sphere, that can help carry some legitimacy to their views to those that aren't entirely capable of assessing the merits of the argument, and would rather not spend time researching claims from someone that turns out to be a rambling idiot.

There are also pieces by those famous that are less arguments, and more calls to action, in which the person't fame, or reputation, helps push the message, and as such it can be factored in as part of the message. It becomes useful for assessing how widespread the reach of the message will be. E.g. Brad Pitt speaking our against a social injustice vs Kim Kardashian commenting on fiscal policy. In one the fame helps spread the message (even if it doesn't, or at least shouldn't change the merits of the message itself), in the other the fame is irrelevant.

For Stross, he's a fairly famous hard Science Fiction author, he's commented on the future and fiscal issues before, and has written books regarding interstellar money systems (haven't read yet) and possible problems with them. His fame in this area makes me want to see what he has to say, we'll see if I agree after I finish reading it...

>What difference does it make if the author is famous or not?

It would explain why this jibberish is #1 on HN.

Fame is a pretty important social indicator.