I realized it was unsubstantive. Sometimes I delete the comment and rewrite it, sometimes I decide to write in some extra text. It’s a judgment call which one I do. My thought process is, “Oh, that is a bit too unclear, now that I read it, isn’t it?” If I think it just needs a small clarification, I’ll edit in the clarification. If it needs major clarification, I’ll delete and resubmit.

I don’t always make the right call. I know that. Sometimes a minor addition blows up into a massive chunk of text, because I realize the “minor addition” isn’t enough to make the comment stand on its own, so it needs a “minor” addition, and I make another judgment call. Reminds me of “simple” changes at work that balloon into massive, quarter-long projects. It sneaks up on me. Sentences and paragraphs that look great have a way of seeming woefully deficient once you hit that “submit” button.

I firmly believe that the ephemerality of context is inevitable, and live with it. I understand that this is my personal take on context on HN… is context ephemeral? Or should we do what we can to save it? How much effort do we do to save context in the moment so it can be decided?

My personal strategy of dealing with this is on HN to quote the parent comment if I feel the context is important. On my blog, I don’t just link to web pages, but copy in quotes.

If you feel strongly about this, I would love to hear that elaborated, although I know you’re busy.

Brusque is not the same as unsubstantive. I see value in being forewarned that there will be shilling for NFTs, and I'm certain I'm not alone in that. It changes everything about the way you read the article.