For many of us, submitted articles are just social objects for provoking a discussion on particular topics. Also, sometimes the articles are really worth a read, other times they're garbage; usually they're something in-between. Going straight to comments is the fastest way to discover which is which.
Commenting without reading the article is fine. Speculating about what's in the article without having read it is a problem.
that does seem a bit disappointing. I think anyone simply quoting the article needs to explicitly show that that is the case because it was very misleading.
still this article was fascinating to me, from the idea that someone would go to the effort to the results of such effort. then top off my fascination with the idea of trying elsewhere in the country should there be more than one manufacturing point or trying to buy up a production lot as seeing the results of that as well.
Now how many packs of M&Ms? There are six colors there. If you go with the peanut version it probably is worse because they you have the variability of the peanuts which would make the chances of encountering packs with more variation in just the number of candies.
Kind of? And with slightly higher average standards of discourse? And I believe this is actually a compliment.
In my experience, HN comments under article are almost always more useful and more informative than the original article. The same is the case with various subreddits. When I read, say, /r/SpaceX, I also immediately jump into comments, as there is better quality info there.
This applies to mainstream news stories in particular. On HN, there's a good chance you'll find someone who was - or knows someone who was - involved in the topic first-hand, and who then proceeds to debunk various nonsense a typical news story contains. That's a huge value-added.
> I think anyone simply quoting the article needs to explicitly show that that is the case because it was very misleading.
Sure, I think making it clear what text is quoted (and from where) should be an obvious rule. And it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not others read the article; it simply saves brain cycles trying to understand the comment.
It's weird to me how often people try to shoehorn aspects of the site into reddit/not-reddit. It has always been common to talk about some piece of tech that's related to the article, in a way that's not touched by the article itself and doesn't need it to be read first. That doesn't make those comments shallow, and I wouldn't put it in a list of distinguishing factors of reddit either. I agree with the idea that it's not a problem until you're speculating on the article, or raising a point that the article already addressed.
There are memes here too, just not in the form of image macros, so the faux-intelligentsia here pretends they're better than those boorish rubes that frequent reddit
Commenting without reading the article is fine. Speculating about what's in the article without having read it is a problem.