[kasey_junk]

You’ll read pretty wildly off comments on this site about certain topics.

For instance, it’s gotten better over time but effectively anytime you see comments about how the markets work on HN it will be filled with inaccuracies.

[splonk]

Poker is another topic where people wildly overestimate their knowledge but can sometimes present their incorrect ideas in a reasonably coherent way that allows them to be upvoted by other people who also aren't experts. At the bottom of every HN thread about poker you'll find a couple people who actually know what they're talking about shouting into the void, "wait, that's not actually how that works..." before they give up and wander off.

[nubbins]

Across all my HN comments I've found there is an optimum level of detail where it sounds like you know what you're talking about, beyond which is too complicated to get many upvotes. The exception is occasionally on HN you get an undisputed expert on something to come in and set the record straight.

[TylerE]

My personal favorite: Any topic involving airplanes will involve 99% of the people sounding very confidant and very very wrong.

[sentenza]

Believe me, there are worse topics.

The best way to get yelled at or down-voted on HN is having a basic understanding of how EU regulations and the EU legislative process work.

[mongol]

That is actually a topic I hardly see discussed here. And one that would be interesting to see a factual discussion about. Seems to me that perceived conceptions about it are behind Brexit.

[kasey_junk]

I have no knowledge of nuclear sea vessels but the sheer number of comments and the certainty implied makes me suspicious on that topic.

[User23]

I don’t know about that, but I’m absolutely certain the bicycle shed needs to be green.

[claudiawerner]

If you think discussions on markets are bad, try philosophy, especially political philosophy, or sociology. I don't often comment on "very wrong" comments because they're unlikely to get anywhere.

I've found that for all HN detests conformity, more often than not it tends to be a certain kind of perceived conformity, and more often, what is seen as conformity in startup culture. What is often missed in my (honestly) humble opinion, is that this counter-conformity rests squarely in the larger conformity!

[sudosysgen]

I definitely agree. Whenever you try to have a discussion that goes against some sacred assumptions, which happens very often when talking about sociology or (political) philosophy, or non-liberal politics in general, no matter how respectfully or qualifiedly you make your point it's almost certain your interlocutors will not engage productively.

And indeed, because these assumptions are not even known to be assumptions, it's not even visible to the reader that this is a case of conformity.

Interestingly, I've noticed that these modes of conformity often come in temporal waves, in that at different times of the day you get downvoted - or receive less constructive discussion - for differing subjects. I should try to make a more involved analysis eventually.

[asdff]

The timing thing probably has to do with when people get off work or aren't prepping meals.

[sudosysgen]

I had this intuition too, but time zones, breaks, procrastination, variation in meal prep + time zones very likely cancel it out.

It's not simply the amplitude changing, but the sign of comments too - it can go from neutral to upvoted to downvoted and back, so simple patterns in activity can't quite explain it.

[paganel]

To be fair I’m not sure the economists know either, and some of them have even admitted to that.

I’m in bed and on my phone and too lazy to search for an exact link, but for a quick example I can give you the international government-bond market which the theory said that its price should have not ever fallen below zero. At some point in 2019 I think bonds worth $17 trillion (40% of the market if I’m not mistaken) were priced below that zero threshold.

[asdff]

Don't even bother reading anything biology related from here. 1/100 commenters have anything more than a high school biology background, and chances are the article at hand is 5 paragraphs of boilerplate overstatement anyway.