Did he really say that? Farmers are the original WFH-ers.

Exactly. Just as we also see the sun rise each morning.

That, however, does not imply one predicts that the sun will forever rise each morning. In fact, we know that at some point the sun will no longer rise in the morning. But we see the sun rise each morning, and we see a new cambrian idea or core technology every 5-10 years.

> I'm not the one conflating anything here.

That's fair. Conflation implies intent. Whereas you are just confused.

But not all that amazing when you remember that said tuning always happens in reaction to what is already happening. If money were free again today, it is much more likely that people would funnel it into backing products and services riding the inflationary wave, not go back to tech startups. That's explicitly why the central banks increased rates in the first place, after all – to slow down that behaviour. It is just one of an infinite number of variables, not some magical variable that stands alone. Tech's day in the sun was over either way. People were already moving on.

Then the observed trend will come to an end. Seems rather obvious, no?

They might, but, if you are going to let the private sector do better, doesn't that also come with the implication that that the government will step down? We could, for example, have hundreds of businesses selling Windows, Office, etc., fixing the Microsoft problem spoken of earlier, but we can't do that right now because the government doesn't allow it. Try starting a business selling Windows and see how long before the full force of the law is bearing down on you. That certainly isn't efficient.

Analyzing a CAD model as you describe is more like running a compiler or type checker on code already written, which is the norm in software too, but is not within in the vein of the topic of discussion.

They don't. CAD, the "programming languages" of most other engineering disciplines, is as much of a Wild West.

Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely were designed in the same way they are still found now, aside from what are now roads were squares for people to walk in. Return the road back to being a square and nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car era. But, so long as the people want to live a rural lifestyle, good luck…

Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak. Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck travelling long distances to do anything, just like those who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that transportation is necessary in a rural area.

A proper urban environment, however, puts everything right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole reason for living so close to other people.

But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead of actually embracing urbanity.

Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.

It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.

It is true that one can make up any arbitrary reason for leaving, sure. They could have also said they decided to leave because the moon crossed into their zodiac. But when you get down to it, that's never actually the reason.

Undoubtedly the real story is that there is no compelling economic reason to post on X. It is not a service for long-form news content. Nobody goes there to read that kind of content. It is like trying to post cat photos on HN. Soon you're going to realize that you are wasting your time. There are places for cat photos, as there are places for long-form new content, but HN and X, respectively, are not it.

> If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore.

With material impact, perhaps. But posting on X is a solitary activity. This is more like giving up on Solitaire because you thought the Queen of Hearts looked at you funny. Which, no matter how much you claim it to be, doesn't make much sense. More likely you were just bored of the game and made up an expiation to not have to admit that you were bored.

Not really. I was humorously comparing farm incomes to incomes of certain pornographic performers. Not quite up there with the 1920s (when the farmers all built mansions after harvest), or the 1970s (when a single crop paid for the entire farm), but it was probably the third best time in history to be a farmer. Of course, good times can't last forever.

> We decided not to make our farm into a business pretty quick.

My farm was a business from the get-go. Some years are great, others not so much, but on balance it's a pretty good gig.

> if you're unwilling to go into a crazy amount of debt

That's the beauty of coming from the high paying tech industry. You don't need to accumulate the debt, you can pay for it out of pocket. I agree that if you start giving bankers your profit, you won't have a good time. That is a trap a lot of farmers do fall into, and perhaps have no choice but to without a tech (or similar starting point) foundation. However, for the typical reader here...

> to run what most would consider animal abuse and/or ecological destruction.

Be the change you want to see. There is always more work to do, but my farm has come a long way in improving upon those things from how things were done before I arrived.

DNT: 0 = Yes, track me.

DNT: 1 = No, do not track me.

> I'm not even sure with it set to 0 that you can assume that intent.

That's the problem. Someone not paying attention might inadvertently set DNT: 0, which is why the law is written the way it is. But at the same time we have techies who knowingly and carefully set such values and want the service to acknowledge it, contrary to the law. Hence the contention.

No. It was understood to be of their origin. But X being a toxic platform has no bearing on the content The Guardian might post, unless they think their content is also toxic. Recognizing that would justify no longer posting toxic content, sure, but otherwise there is no reason to stop posting.

I mean, aside from the obvious: That nobody is reading the content anyway, not fitting X's niche on the internet, so it is a waste of resources to post. I can understand why they are no longer going to do so. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever did.

> My perspective is that this is more a wikipedia phenomenon.

That is where it originated, as far as I know, yes. But it actually serves a purpose there as collecting quotes around a subject is what that service is largely about, and quotes benefit from citations.

But if you are writing comments on HN made up of quotes from others, why...? Why not let the authors of those quotes speak for themselves? This is, as far as I can tell, not a wiki, it is a discussion forum. Do you disagree? Surely we're here to read what the first person has to say? If I want to have a discussion with a third-party, I'll go talk to them instead. No need for a pointless middleman.

Furthermore, a citation by its very nature requires a quote, but any time I have seen "citation needed" here a quote is nowhere to be found. The HN comment being replied to with that saying is literally the citation! So, not only is it in bad faith, it doesn't even make sense. Fine for a tired Reddit meme, I guess, but has no place on HN.

> Can you link this expectation back to the discussion guidelines?

I don't know. I'm not about to read it. It has no relevance here. The expectations of a service like this come from the users, not some arbitrary guideline document.

Do you want this service to be anything else? Surely we don't need another Wikipedia? I, for one, come to HN because users here actually know things and are willing to talk about it. They don't have to rely on some other person to feed them information. That's the value proposition.

Wikis are fine for what they are, but Wikipedia is right there. Do we really need another one? I say no, but if you think otherwise?

> My view is there are plenty of trolls, they are legion, and they can "win" through sock puppetry and sheer volume.

They only "win" if you react to them. That's what they are here for: Attention. Ignore it and they'll quit wasting their time.

I mean, think about it: If you kept posting and nobody ever replied or pressed one of the vote buttons, wouldn't you get bored of being here too? You may as well write in a private journal if you want to write for no audience. The value over and above a private journal is the audience.

One thing is for certain: You are not going to chase them away with "citation needed".

That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...

> "X has become a cesspool, our work no longer belongs there."

That doesn't really make any sense, but even if we accept the irrationality of it, they claim to still want others to share their content on X, so apparently their work does belong there. A curious contradiction.

> The culture of hacker news is to present evidences based discussion. Unsupported claims are challenged, very frequently with "citation needed." This is something that sets hacker news commentary apart from Reddit or X.*

I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense (that sometimes creeps into HN, but thankfully infrequently; it is not acceptable behaviour). On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party. If bringing in data helps with your comment, so be it, but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.

Logically, if a comment is so poorly prepared that you can't figure it out on its own standing, you either:

1. Work with the author in good faith to understand what they are trying to say. If you find value in reaching for external resources to accomplish that, then fine. Offering something like "XYZ says this, which contradicts what I think you are trying to say. Was that your intent?" would be reasonable, but "Go do my homework for me!" is uncalled for.

2. Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.

(Why did you remove the rest?)

That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest?

I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?