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.
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
> 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.
> So I guess that explains why you
> began with 'oh no, not again'
I'll go away again. Sorry.
Do you want me to delete the comment? I think there's still time.
>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.
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