[throwamon]

> It's against the rule to say that you did not read the article, so I won't say it

Maybe it should be against the rules to say you know it's against the rules, and so on recursively. This loophole is often exploited to make these remarks equally useless and extra snarky.

[belval]

The spirit of the rule isn't that you can't point out when the article addresses the exact questions that the parent is asking:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

My comment sole focus is not that parent didn't read the article. Instead, I chose to answer the comment's question with the answers from the article.

> Useless and extra snarky.

Making a top comment based on an article headline, with no knowledge of what is actually discussed is what's useless and against the HN discussion spirit where we usually try to foster meaningful conversations.

[swsieber]

Your comment:

> It's against the rule to say that you did not read the article, so I won't say it, but:

>> In the modern world optics are EVERYTHING and that cannot be understated. Imho the first thing they need to change (which they have with their move to the new subreddit) is renaming it from r/AntiWork to r/WorkReform.

> /r/WorkReform exists already.

Could have been shortened to

>> In the modern world optics are EVERYTHING and that cannot be understated. Imho the first thing they need to change (which they have with their move to the new subreddit) is renaming it from r/AntiWork to r/WorkReform.

> /r/WorkReform exists already.

And it would have been better.