Hey all: "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, [etc...]. They're too common to be interesting."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

acheron 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can we add “I think it sounds like AI writing” to the list of off topic tangential annoyances? Clicking into an HN thread and having the top comment being about em dashes or something is obnoxious.

▲

cloverich 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Notably, I read this on both my iphone and mac (LG Ultrafine 5k). It is was enjoyable to read in a fun way on my phone, it did not really bug me as a fun blog font. I was more excited about the theme/design than the content. But on my main screen, which is hi res, it _did_ bug my eyes quite a bit. Interesting.

▲

glimshe 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good dang, you're right but the annoyance with this one is far from tangential or "common"...

If the site used a black font over black background it would be more readable as I could at least select the text and read it.

To add insult to injury, the site's name flashes. I'd say that the ONE interesting thing about this link is exactly how exotically bad the presentation is!

▲

clipsy 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think people may disagree with you on what constitutes a tangential annoyance. Is there any point at which the format is, in fact, a legitimate annoyance?

	▲	downloadram 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		tangential and legitimate are not mutually exclusive. the majority of the grievances are infact the latter; they are legitimate what makes them also the former is that (and surely the reason for the rule) is that because these grievances are so commonly expressed when links are shared they create a near constant 'noise' in the signal to noise of each discussion, with signal being the idea or message intended to be shared by the poster rather than the medium it arrived in a better way to discuss the tangent or the medium would be by submitting its own HN post. that way theres a better S/N ratio for everything example: scientific breakthrough is shared on fbook signal: any discussion about that breakthrough or its Nth order effects on anything noise: any discussion about the fbook website, walled gardens, zark muckerburg, anything that would be on any link for that site regardless of the message inside the medium those discussions arent illegitimate, they are better served by targeted discussion on their posts like.. some websites are stylized the point of illegibility fbook website dark patterns popups make alt F4 ..rather than increasing noise across the whole of HN. this rule is closely related to another site rule: "use the best possible interpretation of the parent comment" because it too is a rule that is in place as an attempt to steer toward "curious discussion" (high S/N ratio) ( i will agree in this case the illegibility warrants a comment chain, holy smokes! )
	▲	17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Markoff 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What's the point in linking unreadable website? I just opened it, saisd "Jesus!" and immediately closed it, I like my eyes. People should just flag unereable mess like this.

▲

aembleton 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just use reader view in your browser.

	▲	Markoff 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's a good tip, but if author can't be bothered to provide normally readable website, I am not interested in reading whatever he writes.

▲

xtiansimon 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Random blogs are the magazine racks of today. Walk on.

▲

redwood 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In this particular case the content is arguably related I mean I think it's essentially a performance art piece