What I like most about HN is that it's an incredibly efficient filter for reading.
For instance, if I come across a fairly controversial article, or a fascinating new data set, I no longer spend as much time pausing to critically think about it - I instead open the HN comment thread and read all the intelligent for/against arguments that arise, naturally, in the comments.
In simple terms, HN becomes a secondary brain for me. And that saves me time.
Of course - this doesn't happen in a vacuum. The beauty of HN is that if you've read an interesting article, and there aren't many comments at that point in time, it's your duty to add your thoughts to HN, because sometimes you can see things that nobody else can and that's valuable.
And the mutual thinking, the group powered fact-checking and the argumentation - all this is contributed to by all, and enjoyed by all.
For instance, if I come across a fairly controversial article, or a fascinating new data set, I no longer spend as much time pausing to critically think about it
Only in the same sense that calculators are a tragedy, when the simple takes less effort, there is more effort left for the complex. The analogy of an externalised group brain is actually a pretty good one, and one may contribute to said brain as much as one benefits from it, to boot.
Maybe this is my own prejudice, but I think there's a big difference between practicing basic math skills constantly, and exercising critical thinking constantly.
Sure there's quite a big difference, but it's the same basic idea, a concept which through independent enquiry may only occur to you after period of time x has elapsed instead is presented to you in a shorter period of time than period x.
That doesn't necessarily mean you don't critically analyse the presented concept, or that you don't analyse other aspects of the problem space merely because you have neatly parcelled answer handed to you, it's just a single aspect which you did not independently need to construct.
> I no longer spend as much time pausing to critically think about it
And why wouldn't you? HN is perfectly capable of making arguments with incredible force in a very eloquent and hard to refute way. And be dead wrong anyway.
You can never abolish critical thinking, either about the original article (especially when criticism is based on un-sourced data) or about the comments themselves.
That doesn't save you time, it adds to the amount of data you have to do your critical thinking about.
Apart from the liberal use of noprocras, I apply a few simple guidelines to everything I read on HN:
1) If the title contains 'X ways/steps/secrets to Y' I skip.
2) If the article is longer than 1500 words and appears interesting, I mark both article and comment thread as toread in my del.icio.us for reading at the end of the day.
3) If the article is linkbait, or is about a fad, I skip.
4) If the article is derivative and/or adds nothing new to the discussion (e.g.: Why you should have a co-founder), I (usually) skip.
I used to do the delicious toread thing as well, until (via a link on HN, natch) I discovered the wonders of InstaPaper - it's a wee bookmarklet that creates a to-read list for you, strips out a lot of the ugly formatting, can send you batches of stuff to read when you're bored, exports to e-reader formats...
And for bonus points, they'll take either a username or email for signup - and that's it.
I enjoyed this article, but I would suggest a minor correction: PG is phenomenal, but I don't believe he is responsible for shifting the balance of power from investors to founders. I think that's a function of technology and the Internet itself, as barriers to start a startup continue to be lowered. In fact, PG himself said in a TC interview there was a time (not long ago) when you almost literally had to ask permission from investors to launch a startup. That has changed, and would have been the case with or without PG, I'm fairly sure. I do, however, believe PG seriously helps to educate, encourage, and facilitate startups on the road to success within this natural function, a handful directly as YC companies, and many more through everything else he does, like his essays, Startup School, and HN.
One thing I'd add to the list of dislikes of HN is how some downvoting is applied. I think downvotes are great as a mod tool for shunning comments that are hollow, trollish, or otherwise don't contribute to the discussion. What I dislike is seeing downvotes applied carelessly because of casual disagreement with a commment which is otherwise well thought out. I'd rather people actually reply expressing their dissent, which at least gives the chance for rebuttal and further debate. Downvoting is the easy way out, and tends to look rather insulting to me, because being at zero or sub-zero relegates serious commenters to the same class as trolls. I don't think that encourages a healthy commenting community.
Back in the day (1980s, 1990s), only a closed circle of serial entrepreneurs knew the ins and outs of the business/legal side of launching and building a startup and the paucity of information available to those outside this circle was a major barrier to entry for young entrepreneurs, even within Silicon Valley. Beyond that, you basically had to be in Silicon Valley, or in one of only a very few other centers within the United States, to have a ghost of a chance of putting together a credible team for a startup. When you add to that the capital-intensive requirements for any credible startup back then (usually, a need for $2M to $4M out the gate to fund server purchases, etc. and to put together a quality team of high-priced engineers who, mainly for lack of knowledge, were not otherwise drawn to the startup world as they are today), most doors were closed to young founders, other than as they were willing to become supplicants at the VC entry point into this world.
All that has changed, and decisively so. I would say that PG, as innovator, funder, and philosophical guru for the new breed of entrepreneurs that no longer faces the old barriers, is a major symbol of that change and a major contributor to it. I agree, though, that it is inaccurate to say that he single-handedly or even primarily made it possible.
It has been fascinating to watch all this occur over the years. Founders were once little more than grist for the VC mill. All that has changed, and I don't see it ever going back. Investors remain invaluable to the process but today are required to deal with founders on terms tipping much closer to equality of bargaining power than ever before.
I agree with you and the parent, and just want to point out that I did say that PG was helping shift the balance of power. I think having someone with power and money and influence in the valley who consistently demonstrates that hungry startups can build great things with almost no money must have some kind of effect.
I did notice you said "helping". The reason I continued with the post is I still think what PG does, his money, influence, etc. has little if anything to do with the power shift, even in the context of helping it. VCs (and Angels to an extent) are primarily interested in doing things in their own best interest. It's probably true that many investors give YC companies more respect in terms of the deals they do, but, as PG points out, that's because it's in their own interest to not turn YC against them for future deals. That's not a shift of power, just a case of privileged treatment. Non-YC startups are still quite subject to getting screwed by VCs. Where the actual power shift occurs is in the leverage investors once had over founders for pushing any project forward. It used to be that for any given idea (which is accepted to be fairly valueless at that point) carrying it forward meant investors had to be involved. Why? Well, let's look at the things a startup has to have...
1. Development - this is often the biggest cost and challenge. Unless the founders themselves were developers one would have needed lots of investment capital many years ago to develop even what we consider standard applications today, like ecommerce sites. Today powerful, efficient open source platforms exist, like Magento. Publishing platforms like Wordpress have meant even hobby writers like Michael Arrington could create, publish, and build a blog reaching millions of readers, as he did with TechCrunch, by simply pointing and clicking. Development costs are much lower, and outsourced and/or collaborative development is now more viable than ever before. Nothing to do with PG here.
2. Servers/Hosting/Business Location - the further we look back, the more it cost to establish a business presence. In the old days startups were almost synonymous with brick-and-mortar buildings. Even when the products became software which could be sold virtually, rather than physically, early dot com startups were expected to have a real world base of operations, especially when adding in the need for comprehensive server capacity. This costs money. Nowadays, entrepreneurs can meet virtually, develop, blog and pretty much create value in their pajamas from anywhere in the world. Platforms like the iPod/iPad further provide reach, distribution and act as little money collection windows around the world.
3. Marketing - this is a big one, and probably the biggest reason investors played a key role early on. Reaching people costs money. In the early dot com days there were marketing budgets in the millions being thrown around at all manner of ideas. One needed significant money to even get noticed in such an environment. Today, social networks, publishing, and sharing platforms allow information to travel much more freely. Search engines have gotten better at identifying quality sites. Consider the Conan O'Brien anecdote where he explains that he sent out a single tweet directing people to a web page where they could buy tickets for his tour, which then sold out in a matter of hours. He couldn't believe he didn't have to go to a single radio show, or otherwise do any promotion.
I believe successfully traversing these three areas are crucial to any startup's success. As I've explained the further you go back in time, the more likely you were to need investment money to have any chance at playing the game seriously. All that has changed in the direction of favoring founders. PG, again, while great, really had nothing to do with this. Sorry I didn't elaborate all this the first time. ;)
>>>What I dislike is seeing downvotes applied carelessly because of casual disagreement with a commment which is otherwise well thought out. I'd rather people actually reply expressing their dissent, which at least gives the chance for rebuttal and further debate. Downvoting is the easy way out, and tends to look rather insulting to me, because being at zero or sub-zero relegates serious commenters to the same class as trolls.<<<
You know what's the sad part? In this process the lowest common denominator always rises up. Further, I've noticed that this varies from thread to thread. If you pick up a technical thread then you find insightful things on the top, but if you pick up something general that everyone thinks they can take a stab at you will usually find the simplest concept up there.
The more complex thought out ones tend to stay at the bottom, because most people don't take the time to read through them and understand what the author is saying. It's this human tendency to get attracted to the simple bright lights instead of the beautiful kaleidoscopic pattern in the sky.
Further, much of the quality of discussion is influenced by the subtlety of the matter hand. It's like the audience for each thread is difference and there is a stark contrast between these HN groups.
It's for reasons like these that I have almost quit commenting on non-technical articles. Most people don't even refute my arguments they simply down vote the hell out of me as if I am spam, especially if I say something that goes against the party line of that particular thread (certain threads invite certain kinds of people which leads to group think). That is insulting.
However, I won't quit until I find a solution to this problem. So, that I can help Mr. Graham in fixing this instead of just sending a rant to him.
Totally agree on the downvoting part. In general (as someone said earlier), the most 'careless' downvotes are self-correcting to some extent. But yes, getting downvoted on the basis of disagreement stings a bit. Other than that, HN is a fantastic community.
Maybe a karma-like system where people were only allowed to use a limited number of downvotes would make them consider doing so more closely.
One of the things I like is that when you email someone here asking for help or advice they're quite nice about it. I've gotten some very thoughtful responses from people here when I've asked for feedback.
I even got a few emails, out of nowhere, furthering discussion that was started here. It was rather surprising (in a good way) and overall feeling I get when I talk to anyone from here (either here or email) is like that from a close colleague that I have respect for and whom I can trust.
One thing I've learned about HN though, don't write anything negative about Apple. Ever. :)
A solid rule if you care about karma. Except as regards to the iOS app store policies. Then you'll even find agreement when criticizing.
I think all Apple criticism will become more well-received over time as people have their Animal Farm moment and realize the pigs have become indiscernible from the humans.
I know this probably seems like linkbait, but I truly didn't write it for that purpose. Just wanted to post it here to say thanks (truly) to everyone who makes HN such an amazing community. It's one of the best things about the Internet for me.
It's because any time someone uses this expression, they are trying to convince everyone that we should adopt their harebrained flat tax strategy, or something. When someone has evidence to assert their beliefs, everyone listens. When someone starts spouting garbage about the "inconvenient truth" about how the rich are being oppressed by a 20% tax rate... well, then everyone tunes out.
I think it's more inconvenient truths like "Your startup is overwhelmingly likely to fail".
Those types of pragmatic posts/comments generally are hushed over in favor of the more exuberant ones.
You're also not allowed to say non-flattering things about people who HN holds dear. I guess that fits under 'inconvenient truths'.
This place is great, but there is a bit of orthodoxy in the mindset - quite unfortunate, actually, as I don't think that fits at all with the 'hacker' mindset.
Do you have an example of someone's comment being deleted for this reason? Someone being banned from hn or experiencing any adverse effects other than being downvoted?
If I came here and posted a comment to the effect of "Paul Graham is a huge idiot", I would expect to get downvoted, but I will have succeeded in saying it.
Is your idea of freedom of speech "nobody gets mad at anything I say, even if my remark is formulated specifically to get them mad"?
I'm not referring to censorship from the administration at all. I'm referring to voting patterns in relation to the expression of honest opinions about 'sacred cows' of HN.
So,
a> no, no adverse effects other than being downvoted (which is a form of suppression of speech through discouragement).
b> that's a bit of a leading idea, assuming I am referring to statements which serve no purpose other than to intentionally inflame. I'm talking about honest opinions, offered as such, which happen to go against the group orthodoxy on HN.
I wouldn't say 'getting mad' would be an issue. Actually, what I'm thinking is more in line with what you are assuming - people make the assumption that a certain line of thinking is being offered solely to be provocative, and they do not take the ideas as having been offered seriously, and rather than engage the idea, downvote as if the intent of the poster was not to seriously engage in discussion.
I'd actually point out that HN is self-correcting. When you offer a comment that goes against the group orthodoxy, and you get downvoted to hell, all it takes is one additional comment pointing out that the downvotes were uncalled for, and that you do have a point regardless, and HN will self-correct. (Personal example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1661588)
Most times, however, people stop after they get unfairly downvoted, and think to themselves: 'well, that's group-think for you!'
Downvoting is often used to express extreme disagreement. Ideally it might not be, but there are no real guidelines on how to use downvoting, and no good mechanism to enforce them if they existed.
It seems to me like the problem isn't that there are certain things you aren't allowed to say, but that there certain things that a large group of people aren't going to even bother taking seriously. It could be because they've seen the argument before and consider it both obviously wrong and inflammatory, or it could be because they've been brainwashed / self-deluded. Regardless, that is a problem with humanity, not the hacker news community.
a> no, no adverse effects other than being downvoted (which is a form of suppression of speech through discouragement).
This bears repeating. People here keep saying you shouldn't care about downvotes, but you nailed it. In effect, it amounts to "silencing dissent" (when applicable).
It's very rare to see a well-articulated, reasonable opinion get downvoted on this website.
HN seems to be slowly catching the disease where stupid popular opinions get upvoted an unreasonable amount (I call this "Slashdot Disease"), but this isn't nearly as dangerous as censorship by downvote.
I personally have posted mathematically provable facts that happened to go against popular opinion be downvoted into negativity, so I wouldn't say it's that rare.
On the whole, the general behavior seems to trend towards upvoting interestingness, but it's by no means insanely uncommon at all, I think.
It's rare for a well articulated, reasonable, relevant, respectful opinion to be downvoted. But recall, a statement can be mathematically provable and yet fail on another of those points.
---
Since you brought it up: in the specific case you're probably referring to [0], you say that you're "not sure exactly what [the parent post is] taking issue with", but the original author of the piece responded to the parent post letting him know he'd corrected his mistake [1]. So while your assertion was technically mathematically correct, I would say it was not relevant, and in fact was dismissive of a relevant concern, which I think explains the downvotes. I do not think it's fair to characterize it as being downvoted because it "happened to go against popular opinion". (I cannot say for sure; I did not vote on any of those comments, but I think I understand the sentiment of those who did.)
I'm glad you brought it up -- I figured it was bad form to do so personally, and was even ashamed of posting the comment you responded to here.
That said, I didn't see Max Klein's response, so I'm quite glad you pointed that out to me, as it was curious; However, I don't feel I was dismissive in the slightest. In light of the correction, I can see how others could view my stance as at odds with reality, but I personally didn't see cause for concern. Again though, my reading / interpretation of the statement was clearly not what was intended, so my logic is predicated upon a fallacy.
I feel I understand it much better now that you've brought it up, because I was honestly dumbfounded at the time.
Still, so as not to betray my Irish stubbornness, it _was_ mathematically correct. ;-)
I'm not sure that's entirely true, although I've seen certain topics frowned upon in a general sense (I'm thinking of politics). What do you have in mind?
Not in my experience. Sure, if the post is either offtopic (to the site) or easily mistaken for trolling, it's going to be downvoted pretty quickly.
From the guidelines:
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
So even if it's related to the original submission, a post might be off-topic.
You mentioned how bright and knowledgeable the comments are to posts and I'd like to add to that idea.
One feature of HN comments is the pseudo-anonymity. I can find out who folks are, if they share info on their ID, but the way the comments are laid out I'm usually reading the bolder toned conversations and ignoring who's saying it. That's a very powerful concept.
Only when a comment really stands out as awesome or terrible do I look at the author.
On most forums I've been to, the username is prominently displayed above or next to a comment, along with an avatar, a way-too-large signature, and various other cruft. The end result is that each comment is contained in a rather large, personalized box, and many comments are judged by the box rather than the contents.
Here on HN, there's a tiny username, in a dim font, in the middle of the line (given less prominence than "points"). This is even true of pg; his comments look just like anyone else's. This has the net result that comments are primarily judged on their contents.
I often have exchanges like this with my wife:
Her: "I read a really good comment on [such-and-such HN thread], it said [contents]."
Me: "I wrote that."
Her: "Oh. I gave you an upvote."
It's true, but it's also fascinating to me that some people have built such a powerful voice here. I can't count the number of times I've been reading a really good comment and thought "this has to be patrick" and sure enough, patio11. And he's not the only one.
In fact, I made this observation in response to one of his comments a couple months back.
I will also start reading a discussion thread that I'm pretty sure he will comment on and stop so that I can come back later to read what he has to say.
While it may be a bit of a time-sink, it's also very streamlined and efficient to consume. I love how visually simple it is: no images, the careful use of dark/light text, formatting of comments, lack of ads, etc. Compared to the other sites I still frequent, admittedly less and less since discovering HN, the differences are not minor. Definitely becoming a big fan though still very much an HN rookie.
I love HN, but sometimes I wish it wasn't so obsessively focused on tech and start-ups. We're missing out on so many great people! It's awesome that we have knowledgeable comments on web page design and computer security, but where are all the hacker biologists, psychiatrists and gardeners? Presumably, they're turned off by the NoSQL debates and the Techcrunch drama.
This site is purportedly about "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."[1] Hopefully, we'll move closer to that ideal.
where are all the hacker biologists, psychiatrists, or gardeners?
Err, we are here. You'd be wrong if you thought that everyone in HN is a startup person, or even a programmer.
However, this is hacker news hosted on ycombinator.com. There is a prevailing standard focused on startups and even though I am not one of those people (nor do I wish to be), I do my bit to fit in with the community standard.
It's like you are walking in a park and there's a bunch of people having an interesting conversation. You might ask to join in, but saying "why don't you people have an interesting conversation about clock mechanisms instead?" would be kinda rude.
Saying "I love HN, but sometimes I wish it wasn't so obsessively focused on tech and start-ups" strikes me as saying "I love the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra but I wish it wasn't so obsessively focused on classical music".
[Later edits in light of comments below:]
The interesting question to ask is "why are the non-startup people here". I can only answer for myself: I came here to pick up interesting new sites (in that way I am a refugee from techcrunch - reading it felt too much like a lobotomy ). I stayed because of the quality of the discussion and because even though the startup folks sometimes seem to think they have a unique ecosystem, a lot of their issues are really common to software and even wider technical groups outside the commercial sector, like my own.
So no, from that point of view I wouldn't go to an HN fork - I just can't afford another time sink, and I would still need to be on HN for my tech news.
As for non-software stories, there are quite a lot of really interesting stories submitted, but they often don't gain enough traction for the home page. But there is a lot of really varied stuff in /new if you look.
I agree that Hacker News shouldn't shift its focus. However, I also think the gp post has a good point that it would be nice to see a wider variety of topics (although I'd prefer it to be a separate community). Is there another Hacker News-like site that has the same quality of discussion?
I hope it stays like that. When I first came here, me starting up my own business one day was really just a dream. This site and the great community here made me realise that the only obstacle is the lack willingness to make that step. These days I'm absolutely obsessed with my start-up.
I really hope it's going to inspire many more people in the future, all these start-ups, each one individually on its own way, could really change how the next century will be like.
It wasn't the source of my inspiration to start, but sure has been a good source of motivation to keep at it. Coming across different people tackling their problems one way or the other, and sometimes sharing their experience, it has been a very positive and supportive experience.
Personally, this is where I come to find out what people obsessed with tech and start-ups are thinking about. I find most of the articles that are not directly related (that I click on anyway,) have some abstract tie-in to startup-land.
The worst thing that could happen to HN would be to lose that character. It would lose its value to its audience, followed quickly by its audience being replaced by one I care a lot less about.
It seems to me that in 99% of the world, business people look down on programmers, so it's nice to see there's a little corner of the world in which it's the other way around.
Really? Why is that "nice"? I think it's sad-- and even sadder that you wrote that and people voted it up. If one minority is stepped on in a corner of the world, it is NOT justice if members of that same minority get to step on someone else across the globe. We should judge people as individuals.
For some (very rare) software companies, pure business guys aren't super useful in the early days (Dropbox seems like an obvious example, though they certainly now need a good finance person and senior bizdev person). For the rest, an A-level sales/bizdev guy can literally make the business. Do you think Groupon is a technological feat or a business feat?
They're just like programmers (and the rest of the planet). 95% of them AREN'T A-level players, but the rest are changing the world.
You're taking it a little too seriously. Its not about justice or anything like that.
Its better to think of it as it being nice to have a little part of internet, where your opinions as a hacker actually carry as much weight (if not more) than the typical business guy.
The problem with this is the community-supported techie-self-righteous attitude transfers to personal dealings with co-workers in a business or management role.
This is HACKER News, but part of being a hacker is understanding the problem enough to be able to decompose it and work efficiently. The lack of business-acumen and "self-blinding" that HN does merely reflects the age or experience of the community.
As Hackers, we should try to fully understand the business roles, the management, and WHY we are choosing software to solve a problem. Before there were PCs, software wasn't a business model. Now we have it backwards, we build software companies, not businesses.
The only guarantee when you start a tech start up (or less misleading: a Software company) is that you will write software. It does not mean someone will by it or you.
As a hacker to the bone with a CS degree and no formal education in the other aspects of start up life I say we swallow our collective pride, admit we don't yet understand 95% of what other business units do, and actually apply ourselves to getting proficient at it.
Heh, maybe. Tho on the internet, I'd say the hacker is doing just fine. In fact, it's OFF the internet where the Hacker is probably less influential (i.e. conference rooms, business magazines, etc).
Note that it's usually the programmers who have never had a successful startup who look down on business people and then wonder why their project failed.
True, there are obviously good and bad business people just like there are good and bad hackers.
I'm just against the blanket "we don't need business people for our startup we only need hackers actually building things" attitude that seems pretty common.
Instead of measuring time directly, make a post's "age" for the purposes of ranking be a function of page views. (Or submissions, or something similar.)
I worry that it might be easier to game: refresh a lot of times before submitting to make everything else older. Submissions might work better in that regard, and there are probably other things you can do to mitigate the problem.
That's a pretty terrific idea — and you could make it harder to game by having the page view count be a sum of how many logged in users over a karma threshold had viewed it.
Yes, I think HN is especially valuable for young people not yet set on a career path (who seem to make up the majority of the readership) in opening their eyes to possibilities of entrepreneurship that also engages intellectual curiosity. It works well for much older people like me in getting a reality check on current trends.
Once I found and enabled anti-procrastination I find myself arriving at the "sorry" page 4-5 times per day, getting back to work instantly instead of wandering off on a knowledge hunt.
Definitely one feature which makes HN the great site it is.
I've only recently joined, posted my first request for advice and received some great advice. In a world of social sites where people just tell you what they had for dinner, this site feels like a great find which is full of interesting articles and debates. My only gripe is that I would like external links to open in a new tab or window if anything.
I wish he could be more detailed about the problems with HN. There is simply too much Wired magazine and/or Silicon Valley entrepreneur culture & group thinking around here and I think he didn't point it correctly.
Issues routinely bashed and ignored because they don't belong to this culture: anything Microsoft, global warming, market trends in the 3rd world & Europe, etc.
Irrelevant issues overly hyped just because they're loved by Silicon Valley "hipsters": the last time Steve Jobs went to the toilet, the newest irrelevant fad from Silicon Valley (Yelp, wtf?), libertarian-like conspiracy theories...
HN has been a very good source of information and opinions on certain topics of interest to me.
Have come across some really awesome articles that were immediately applicable to my situation, some are absolute crap though.
The moderating mechanism has been a good source of constructive feedback for my communication skills, which are far from great. (still, long way to go)
Came across some great perspectives on some issues, as well as some crappy ones. Overall, I am glad I found it.
More than one request has been made to get quoted strings in queries, which would be very useful, without any feedback from developers. The website is still there, however it seems the developer have dumped the code and forgot about it.
I agree quoted strings in queries would be nice. There are some technical challenges in handling mixed queries where some terms are quoted and others are not, though.
Gosh, Her Majesty The Developer! Er... th-thanks for a-answering...
;-)))))
Jokes aside, thank you very much for developing SearchYC and making it available.
What would you think about adding a FAQ section where - among other things - you explain the "quoting issue" has indeed been considered, but dismissed because of difficult implementation? I guess every web-surfer has got used to quoting in searches, therefore not having it leaves him baffled.
Some people seem to agree with you, but I much prefer it the way it is: if I want a new window, I shift-click; if I want a new tab, I cntl-click; if I want to keep it in the same window, I just click.
This seems like the sanest choice to me, since everyone can have it work how they want, even if their preferences change from time to time. Or is it possible for everyone to get their desired behaviour even with "target = new"?
no 'target=' user preference so that external links could show up in another tab/window if so desired
I have always seen a default option to open links in the same window as a small but definite signal that a site is more geared towards technical people who know how to open a new tab/window if and when they want one.
I'm so used to mouse gesturing a line up across a link to open it in a new window, I often confuse myself when I'm using a browser without this capability.
Well, yeah. I just want it to be the default instead of having to remember to hold down the command key to open in a new tab. It's a petty complaint, I do realize. :-)
I'm suggesting something different: that there is an option in user preferences that would let you pick whether you get a new target or not. Default off.
My greatest pet pieve on HN: The comment field is unusable on iOS, and the rating targets are too small with no undo. I find myself composing in a notes app and pasting.
(Only a problem because I like HN and spend a lot of time here recently.)
For instance, if I come across a fairly controversial article, or a fascinating new data set, I no longer spend as much time pausing to critically think about it - I instead open the HN comment thread and read all the intelligent for/against arguments that arise, naturally, in the comments.
In simple terms, HN becomes a secondary brain for me. And that saves me time.
Of course - this doesn't happen in a vacuum. The beauty of HN is that if you've read an interesting article, and there aren't many comments at that point in time, it's your duty to add your thoughts to HN, because sometimes you can see things that nobody else can and that's valuable.
And the mutual thinking, the group powered fact-checking and the argumentation - all this is contributed to by all, and enjoyed by all.