底下是部分
Hacker News (HN) 歡迎頁面的中文翻譯：
...
這裡的文章不只是關於技術，因為好的電腦高手不僅僅是對技術感到好奇，而是擁有能夠「深度地好奇」的能力。
然而什麼事情是「深度有趣」的？我們認為，是那些能夠幫助人們更了解這個世界的事情。比方說，一則關於搶劫的故事，可能不怎麼「深度有趣」。但倘若這則搶劫是某個大事件的前兆，是一個隱藏的趨勢，那麼可能它就是「深度有趣」。
那，什麼東西是屬於「不深度有趣」的呢？關於名人的八卦、好笑或可愛的影音、圖片，宣傳黨派的政治文章等不是。如果這些東西被放上網站，它們會排擠真正「深度有趣」的事物，並且害它們漸漸被冷落。[註一]
至於什麼是好的評論呢？這得看一則評論能教給我們什麼。這有兩個層面，比如指出之前沒有被提過的思考方向，以及提供更多關於該主題的資訊。從個人的經驗來說，像是「XD」或「這蠢斃了！」等等評論則什麼也沒教我們。[註二]
...
註一：這令我想到有名的破窗理論 ─ 犯罪學裡的一個理論，由詹姆士·威爾遜（James Q. Wilson）及喬治·凱林（George L. Kelling）提出。此理論認為環境中的不良現象如果被放任存在，會誘使人們仿傚，甚至變本加厲 (
維基百科)。
註二：讀了這裡，我終於弄懂了為什麼有些人的話聽來總是「沒有營養」，而有些人的話則聽來「很有想法」。重點是要講出沒有被提過、觀察過的新方向，或者提供更深入詳盡的資訊。你的身邊有多少人擁有這兩點能力？
註三：
Hacker News 由 Paul Graham 於2007年2月建立，是一家關於電腦駭客和創業公司的社會化新聞網站。被台灣的 Inside 歸為「
硬派」的資訊集散地。是網路創業者、網路觀察者與相關從業人員討論議題的重要場地，創業經歷以及新技術的分享是一大賣點。
筆者的想法
之所以會特別思考琢磨 HN 的歡迎頁面，是因為筆者對於 HN 所講的許多概念
很有共鳴。我對於現下社群網站上廣泛流傳的「淺薄」資訊感到一點噁心，也對很多只會進行單向思考的人們開始感到厭煩。真實的世界會比一個人理解中的世界複雜，而越來越多往平均靠攏且膚淺的言論最終只會破壞人們對真實世界的理解。
所以，HN 的宗旨到底教了我什麼？我想，是一種對於「深度好奇」能力的追求，以及認識一個真正具有意義的評論，到底是指具備什麼條件。 HN 的主張看起來簡單明瞭，然而也因為它的簡單明瞭，令我感到很務實。我想一個人若是能夠武裝上這些能力，經常提出創意性的評論，那麼他所身處的「那個世界」必定和很多人所處的「世界」不同，而且，也很有可能過著非凡有趣的人生。當然這只是我的猜測，然而看看我心中尊敬的一些人士，比如安藤忠雄、茂呂美耶、Paul Graham 等等...我覺得這個猜測一點也不過分。
心想 HN 應該不會介意我把原文放在這裡分享，所以若你感到好奇，請看：
Welcome to Hacker News
Hacker News is a bit different from other community sites, so we'd appreciate it if you'd take a minute to read the site guidelines.
HN is an experiment. As a rule, a community site that becomes popular will decline in quality. Our hypothesis is that this is not inevitable—that by making a conscious effort to resist decline, we can keep it from happening.
We don't know whether this hypothesis is correct, but it has held up for a surprisingly long time already.
Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads.
A crap link is one that's only superficially interesting. Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, then perhaps it could be.
The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter.
The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: both civil and substantial.
The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing.
Empty comments can be ok if they're positive. There's nothing wrong with submitting a comment saying just "Thanks." What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling.
Which brings us to the most important principle on HN: civility. Since long before the web, the anonymity of online conversation has lured people into being much ruder than they'd dare to be in person. So the principle here is not to say anything you wouldn't say face to face. This doesn't mean you can't disagree. But disagree without calling the other person names. If you're right, your argument will be more convincing without them.
