Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ColinWright | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ColinWright

And the bowl of petunias said: Oh no, not again.

For those interested in the collective wisdom of the HN community, here are some previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3313570 : 1206 days ago | 177 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4865742 : 841 days ago | no comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017104 : 807 days ago | no comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5104430 : 790 days ago | 94 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040804 : 618 days ago | 1 comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6767385 : 489 days ago | no comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7446014 : 368 days ago | 2 comments

View on HN

While that certainly is an intimidating set of links you have there, only two of those have any discussion -- one over two years ago, the other nearly four years ago.

Indeed - has anything changed?

If not, then those discussions are still relevant, and there would be value in skimming them rather than simply repeating all the points again.

If so, then it would be of value to see what has changed, possibly by reading the previous discussions. Perhaps the mood of the audience has changed, perhaps the general opinions of the HN community have shifted.

Either way, being aware of the past is of value.

    Those who cannot remember the past
    are condemned to repeat it.

        -- George Santayana

EDIT: People often misunderstand these back-links. They are not intended to scold people for submitting things that have been submitted before. On the contrary, I believe some things should re-surface from time to time, bringing them back either for the informing of the newer community members, or for re-evaluation in case things have moved on and should be re-considered. My main concern and motivation is that previous contributions should not be wasted.

The two with discussion are certainly relevant. The others were not. To me, they served only to give the false impression that this has been discussed a lot more than it actually has.

> They are not intended to scold people for submitting things that have been submitted before

So I guess that explains why you began with 'oh no, not again'

    > The two with discussion are certainly relevant.
    > The others were not. To me, they served only to
    > give the false impression that this has been
    > discussed a lot more than it actually has.

That's why I said how many comment there were - to give the data that there were lots of submissions, not all of which had generated discussions.

    > So I guess that explains why you
    > began with 'oh no, not again'

Yeah, OK, point taken. I guess I've just been around too long and read too much stuff. I went away for a while and have only just started to read again, but I guess I'm still too jaundiced.

I'll go away again. Sorry.

Do you want me to delete the comment? I think there's still time.

I didn't realize you quoted the number of replies, I thought HN did that automatically.

>I'll go away again

haha i never said to go away. play it like it feels. i'm biased since you were responding to my submission.

No, don't delete the comment. And don't go away!

   Most people are prisoners, thinking only about the future or living in the past.
   They are not in the present, and the present is where everything begins.

    -- Carlos Santana

That said tongue-in-cheek, the links do add value here; thanks for posting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com