|
|
|
|
|
by dijit
402 days ago
|
|
Agreed, when it comes to writing for hackernews I have had the best results personally when being curious but incomplete. If I try to actually educate someone or do my research fully, either someone will know more than me, and an expert will weigh in to invalidate some section of my posting- or people will pretend to be an expert- and you’ll spend a day trying to discuss why what they’re saying is incorrect. Both will cause the discussion for other people to die. The best has been tangents that are tangentially related to the topic presented. There can be multiple of these subthreads and they always make for interesting reading. |
|
Personally, I love the debates that stress-test my posts, they're the most interesting part for me. If I put effort into writing something, might as well defend it, and wouldn't want any punches pulled. Oftentimes people's attempts at debunking my message end up doing quite the opposite to what I'd expect — further validating what I wrote. Other times I need to clarify something in the post.