If you think that HN is neutral, need to know, or even concise, you're crazy.
Though on the subject of neutrality, humans aren't neutral, so expecting their publications to be is itself insane.
Though on the subject of neutrality, humans aren't neutral, so expecting their publications to be is itself insane.
What comes up on HN to me, is more entertaining, and somewhat more relevant (I do run across the things once in a while that I could apply to what I do at my work.)
Guess I'll think twice before posting something positive about HN from now on.
But it is not:
* neutral: there are some pretty obvious biases, though they aren't consistent
* need-to-know: there's nothing I've learned on HN which has been strictly necessary to me, though there's a lot which was interesting
* concise: the net information density is relatively low, than higher on many other discussion sites. (Low bar, I know...)
As for need to know, might I be so bold as to suggest that if you haven't learned anything of use at HN, perhaps it's not suited for your interests/profession?