> Cherry-picked quote from the article cut off too early
Bad faith argument that could only be made by not reading further into the article or cutting the quote off before it answers the exact question/argument posed here.
A comment complaining this was obviously written by an AI, and the standard template is a tell. A philosophical observation about what that says about the state on online discourse. Link to the Dead Internet Wikipedia page.
A poor attempt at joining the convo too late because I don't browse /new like everyone else. No one upvotes, and I question my intelligence for the 3rd time today.
Feels similar with cold email.I used to think it was mostly about better copy or subject lines, but lately it feels like timing matters way more. Same message, different moment, completely different outcome.
Have you seen cases where timing mattered more than the message itself?
A comment making a subtle point about something discussed in the middle of the article that languishes near the bottom of the page because nobody read the full article.
Repeat the title 3 times in the first 3 lines then again as the start of the next paragraph.
Fill the rest of the article assuming this is the readers first day on planet earth. Like, an article about a CPU architecture should start with the early history of mathematics.
87 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] thread> a quote from the article
A link to something relevant or interesting to add or support a point [1]
An opinionated comment or personal anecdote.
[1] the link from above
Bad faith argument that could only be made by not reading further into the article or cutting the quote off before it answers the exact question/argument posed here.
The article itself was in fact delightful once I zoomed out a bunch.
Have you seen cases where timing mattered more than the message itself?
>Fletcher Munson: [sunnily, on homecoming] Generic greeting!
>Mrs. Munson: [warmly] Generic greeting returned!
>[they kiss and chuckle at each other]
>Fletcher Munson: Imminent sustenance.
>Mrs. Munson: Overly dramatic statement regarding upcoming meal.
>Fletcher Munson: Oooh! False reaction indicating hunger and excitement!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117561/quotes/
http://bradconte.com/files/misc/HackerNewsParodyThread/
Discussion (589 points, 189 comments):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5326511
Group 1: A thinly veiled straw man that buckets everyone I disagree with, along with an attempt to appear as if I'm being unbiased
Group 2: The group I put myself in and provide better arguments for why this perspective is correct.
Vague motte and bailey statement that gives me plausible deniability when someone criticizes my analysis.
Fill the rest of the article assuming this is the readers first day on planet earth. Like, an article about a CPU architecture should start with the early history of mathematics.