I think our experiences may differ. Just looking through stories I've seen on the front page recently, there's the following:
* A slave in Scotland
* They knew it was round, damn it
* Two hundred terabyte proof is largest ever (granted, the 200 TB is not what's really interesting here)
* How the ArXiv decides what's science
* Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison
* Hiroshima (1946)
This seems like a healthy mix of topics, and they don't seem to have been deemed worthless.
I have noted a certain amount of hostility to philosophical topics, but I would venture a guess that there's been hostility to philosophy in general at all periods in history.
I expect to see a certain percentage of comments in an HN thread about how the topic is presented. Everybody's got to let off some steam sometimes. I made my initial comment because I was surprised at how many comments addressed only how the topic was presented rather than that and the actual content.
Yeah, that comment was over-the-top. It's indeed sometimes excellent to see articles out-of-left-field here, because the perspective is different, somewhat deep and, well, new.
If it's a non-IT topic that comes up more often, it feels like a group identity has the ability to form that's a bit agressive towards anything considered different. I notice it with non-technical approaches, people, groups, institutions, customs, or media, such as social sciences, the UN, Politics, The New Yorker (just made up, don't go searching), Religion (and I even agree on the facts), Teacher, Art (expt. DeepDream), Women (in comment-, not voting power, see early vs. late threats).
But even in these, if people didn't have a chance to form a group opinion because it's rare, the discussion is excellent, and your examples are excellent!
I'll just read the threads a day later after everything has settled and stuff like my comment's been sunk to the graveyard :)
* A slave in Scotland
* They knew it was round, damn it
* Two hundred terabyte proof is largest ever (granted, the 200 TB is not what's really interesting here)
* How the ArXiv decides what's science
* Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison
* Hiroshima (1946)
This seems like a healthy mix of topics, and they don't seem to have been deemed worthless.
I have noted a certain amount of hostility to philosophical topics, but I would venture a guess that there's been hostility to philosophy in general at all periods in history.
I expect to see a certain percentage of comments in an HN thread about how the topic is presented. Everybody's got to let off some steam sometimes. I made my initial comment because I was surprised at how many comments addressed only how the topic was presented rather than that and the actual content.