There's a general rule on Stack Exchange that something isn't worth reading unless the deletionists are having a cow about it.
Come on guys, we need to save valuable and expensive disk space for those oh so precious "http://lmgtfy.com/" questions.
You can find on topic high detail accurate cited analysis of technical questions everywhere else on the internet (insert sarcasm); stack exchange is not for that; its for people who are somehow smart enough to use SE but not smart enough to use google.
And that's the value of this HN article; SE has made itself irrelevant, so when a valuable gem floats by in its sewer, unless someone points the gem out, no one will ever see it again.
Its too bad, the tech behind SE, and some of its ideas, and obviously the subject matter, could obviously create a better site than SE.
Yeah, and I agree with VLM; SE sites were amazing once they started but now its just filled by a bunch of ass*.
I recently asked for an opinion on the fastest algorithm to layout elements on a webpage (something I consider should be Web Developers 101 and actually didn't found anything on google) and my question got closed promptly because 'it was not constructive'. Come on...
Come on guys, we need to save valuable and expensive disk space for those oh so precious "http://lmgtfy.com/" questions.
You can find on topic high detail accurate cited analysis of technical questions everywhere else on the internet (insert sarcasm); stack exchange is not for that; its for people who are somehow smart enough to use SE but not smart enough to use google.
And that's the value of this HN article; SE has made itself irrelevant, so when a valuable gem floats by in its sewer, unless someone points the gem out, no one will ever see it again.
Its too bad, the tech behind SE, and some of its ideas, and obviously the subject matter, could obviously create a better site than SE.