[tptacek]

I actually think it's worth taking the time to break down what makes something a good or bad HN submission. Some elements present in this piece that, when combined, seem to drive the worst kinds of HN threads:

* A spicy take

* A subject almost no likely commenters have any expertise on

* A subject that lots of likely commenters have their own spicy takes on

* Invocation of "wokeness"

* Perennial HN punching bag target (here: pharma; could just as easily be something else)

Again these don't make the post itself bad. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying: grapes are great! But don't feed them to your dog.

[tomp]

I agree, but the benefit/interest in HN isn't just in comment threads... for me, it's my primary source of interesting relevant information (e.g. as opposed to news sites, which are mainly interesting but irrelevant (in the grand scheme of things) information)... and sometimes, that's in comments, other times it's in the articles posted.