HN has clearly defined 'meta rules' that have been casually and sometimes not so casually enforced since its inception.
It seems like we have an equal number of decades of experience, and it also doesn't matter either way. It's irrelevant and a logical fallacy in itself.
Those rules I happily agree with. I also think that the original article fits within those rules. And, "Sparks conversation that cannot be found elsewhere on the Internet" is not among those rules.
It seems like we have an equal number of decades of experience, and it also doesn't matter either way. It's irrelevant and a logical fallacy in itself.