I saw this comment yesterday but didn't read beyond its first sentence, which is great. But looking it it now again, I'm sad to see that the discussion it evoked was more in response to the indignation in it ("bullshit", "stupid people", "bullshit") than to the inspiration in it.
Unfortunately, this is predictable. Indignation activates generic responses and, above all, attracts upvotes. It feels great in the short term but leads HN to duller, more obvious places. This pattern is dismayingly reliable. A large part of what we do as HN moderators is to try to counteract it. HN can't live by upvotes alone.
If I compare the relatively low quality of this subthread to the more modest and far more interesting responses that people had to the specific details of the article, the contrast is striking.
I don't mean to pick on you personally! We are all subject to this phenomenon and few of us are very conscious of it in ourselves. There was another example even in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729322. These kinds of subthread grow like weeds. They crowd out the quieter kinds that don't fire up the generic anger that exists in all of us. This effect is collective, not individual; it's a co-creation, and the upvotes probably do more harm than the comments. I am sure you had no intention of feeding it. Unfortunately it happens anyway.
p.s. Perhaps I should add that there's nothing wrong with a critique of VC on HN. HN has hosted countless such critiques. Possibly more have appeared here than anywhere else. The HN community is overwhelmingly (90+%) outside of Silicon Valley, and the majority of it strongly identifies against the VC system (while often feeling itself to be the minority, as if HN overall were of the opposite view).
Rather, the problem is that this was a less interesting direction for the discussion to go, when the actual topic—an onion business!—was much rarer and more curious. What fuels generic tangents is not intellectual curiosity, but a quite different cocktail of emotions. As I said, a large part of moderating HN consists of trying to tease those apart. Trying and mostly failing.
Unfortunately, this is predictable. Indignation activates generic responses and, above all, attracts upvotes. It feels great in the short term but leads HN to duller, more obvious places. This pattern is dismayingly reliable. A large part of what we do as HN moderators is to try to counteract it. HN can't live by upvotes alone.
If I compare the relatively low quality of this subthread to the more modest and far more interesting responses that people had to the specific details of the article, the contrast is striking.
I don't mean to pick on you personally! We are all subject to this phenomenon and few of us are very conscious of it in ourselves. There was another example even in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729322. These kinds of subthread grow like weeds. They crowd out the quieter kinds that don't fire up the generic anger that exists in all of us. This effect is collective, not individual; it's a co-creation, and the upvotes probably do more harm than the comments. I am sure you had no intention of feeding it. Unfortunately it happens anyway.
p.s. Perhaps I should add that there's nothing wrong with a critique of VC on HN. HN has hosted countless such critiques. Possibly more have appeared here than anywhere else. The HN community is overwhelmingly (90+%) outside of Silicon Valley, and the majority of it strongly identifies against the VC system (while often feeling itself to be the minority, as if HN overall were of the opposite view).
Rather, the problem is that this was a less interesting direction for the discussion to go, when the actual topic—an onion business!—was much rarer and more curious. What fuels generic tangents is not intellectual curiosity, but a quite different cocktail of emotions. As I said, a large part of moderating HN consists of trying to tease those apart. Trying and mostly failing.