For me, it is also Avatars. I often just don't read the name before the comment, maybe after, if I found it interesting. When people had little pictures it was just so easy to recognize them when just scanning the conversation.
I think that's on purpose, on HN. IIRC the stated reason is that it encourages you to focus on the content of posts rather than who wrote it, though IMO it's net-harmful and is part of why certain types of trolling and shit-posting are super effective on HN.
It may also (unintentionally?) serve to limit strong bonds developing on the site and prevent the rise of well-known posters who aren't already HN celebrities for reasons outside their posting on the site, reducing the likelihood or effectiveness of offshoots or schisms that have been a common feature of other large Web forums.
For a long time I resisted the pull of avatars, and thought of them as gimmicky. (This coming from the mailing list / Usenet tradition in large part.)
But having used forums in which avatars are and are not used (G+, Diaspora, and Mastadon amongst the former, HN, Reddit, and Tildes amongst the latter), I feel a palpable difference between the two. Most of us are sufficiently visually-oriented to pick up on a symbolic representation (avatars need not be photographs or faces), and there's a more rapid assimilation of these than there is of just a textual tag.
I've also noticed on platforms / cultures in which changing the visible handle / avatar combination is fairly common (this seems to be the case on Mastodon especially) that this is disruptive. Yes, there's a persistent user name, but changing the associated image and handle ... breaks that recognition. On balance I rather dislike it.
I'd had a brief experience on a site in which serial pseudonymity and a lack of long-term persistent identity was a norm (Imzy). That I think was one of several ultimately fatal mechanisms for the platform --- it was shut down after about a year.
