[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Not a new phenomenon!"

True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon

Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant

IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being made

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

It could be that these "this is not new" HN replies are not responding to the submission, its author or its subject matter but are instead focused on HN thread readers and other HN commenters and what those readers might think or how those commenters might react

If there is a submission or a comment that makes a claim such as "this is unprecedented", then a "this is not new" reply, preferably with supporting evidence, makes sense

But that's not what's going on here

[potsandpans]

> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN...

Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage.

So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"

[datsci_est_2015]

This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.

[potsandpans]

> This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to?

Is that a question or a statement?

[datsci_est_2015]

Using a question mark in such a statement is a rhetorical device to indicate an implicit question, such as “did you intend to write a comment that sounded like an argument, yet only strengthened the argument of the comment you were responding to.” Conversationally, humans usually inflect the end of the sentence to indicate such uncertainty. Have you had a conversation with a human before?