I see a few comments where people refer exclusively to satellite imagery despite the fact that this story is about RF-detection satellites.
Has Hacker News ever flirted with a "commenter did not read the linked story / page but is pretending they did" vote feature? There's obviously room for abuse even if it were limited to "reputable" users but I would use it on some comments on this item.
I think that for a lot of regular commenters, it's more about the discussion than the article that started it. Fealty to the original content is secondary to conversation.
I suppose you're right, though I'd call it less "fealty" and more "relevance".
In this case, it looks like the discussion in the comments flies to a subject that people feel they have familiarity with (satellite imagery) instead of what is actually contained in the article (satellite RF detection) and thus the conversation on the article strongly suggests that the community is _not_ assimilating any information from the article.
I suppose I should be the "candle" and just talk about RF detection rather than "cursing the darkness".
> 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."
Has Hacker News ever flirted with a "commenter did not read the linked story / page but is pretending they did" vote feature? There's obviously room for abuse even if it were limited to "reputable" users but I would use it on some comments on this item.