I don't believe mixmax missed the point at all. I believe that he/she is genuinely interested in what exactly 'gratifies one's intellectual curiosity' in this article, to quote the guidelines. I'm sorry if I come of as rude here, I am appalled by the insensitivity of those anonymous comments just like the rest of you, but, like mixmax, I too don't quite get what is it in this article that 'hackers would find interesting'. There must be something, otherwise it wouldn't receive over 100 votes.

"Hackers" are not a monolithic group that share exactly the same interests. Some people (hackers or not) might have intellectual curiosity about the lives of ordinary people, about how a media organization responded (or, in other stories, failed to respond) to nasty online comments, or about how a simple news item (man on bike killed in hit and run) can be given layers of meaning. Personally I found a great deal of stimulation for my intellect (much more so than reading yet another item about antenna issues on the iPhone), but I don't mean to suggest that everyone would see it the same way.

Sandman is correct in his asessment - I completely understand the point and context of the article as explained in these comments. I simply didn't understand why it seemed to be interesting enough to gather 100+ votes. You can call the original question an attempt to gratify my intellectual curiosity as to why this story is so interesting.

Your comment sheds some light on it, personally I still don't see the value of the article but I do see the sentiment for upvoting it. I merely thought there was some finer point I didn't get and wanted to understand it.

I posted it as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon": a journalist finds a decent way to push back against online abusiveness. The story isn't really about one guy, it's about human relations and the value of human life. In other words the real story is all meta, but the reporter had the sense do it unobtrusively and keep the focus on Neil.

There's a secondary way in which this is an interesting phenomenon, too: the story is being picked up by other media outlets because it resonates with many people. I caught part of an interview with the reporter on CBC radio last night. While they did talk explicitly about the meta aspect (what prompted you to write it, what were you trying to achieve, how do you think the internet is affecting people), they also had the sense to devote most of the piece to Neil Smith. What the reporter figured out is that by focusing on the details of this individual, he could make a general point more powerfully than by stating it in general. That excites my curiosity.

Edit: There are two common responses to nasty online comments: argue with them or ignore them. Most people figure out after a while that arguing just feeds the trolls, so ignoring is better. But this guy came up with an innovative way to respond: he elevated the thing that they belittled; he picked it up and polished it off and showed that it was beautiful. He found a way to give beauty for ashes. That's just not very common.

Like everyone on HN I am annoyed disappointed by the natural tendency of online comments to give way to trolls. This article just seemed like a very classy response to troll comments.

It gave me much need pause to reflect and recognize how fortunate I am to have found a career I can be passionate about. That people I generally don't think about could possibly be more interesting and have more to teach me than most of my associates. I also learned that having the latest iPhone (when the previous one didn't break) marks you not as discriminating and fashionable but as easily manipulated.

From hackers I know many are also interested in community building and working towards and more fair and just world where everyone is appreciated for their contributions.

I guess that's what your seeing from the upvotes.