I often feel the same way when discussions pop up here or on other forums, about topics I'm familiar with. Like randos declaring that researchers in deep learning are "obviously doing it wrong" and they should instead do X, where X is like an entire subfield existing for years with a lot of activity, etc.
So I get where you're coming from. But I'd suggest that a place like HN is in fact a place for random people to inject their half-baked takes. It is a just discussion board where lots of the comments will be uninformed or wrong. Take it or leave it. If you want something else, you need to find more niche communities that are - by the nature of it - more difficult to find and less public, including IRL discussion, clubs, conferences etc. But it has its use: we, you and me can jump in any thread and type out what we think after 2 minutes and get some response. But of course someone even more novice might think that we know more than just that 2 minutes consideration, and they learn our junk opinion as if it was the result of long experience. It's unavoidable, since nobody knows who the rest of the commenters are.
Online discussions are incredibly noisy, and often even the people who seem to use the jargon and seem knowledgeable to the outsider can be totally off-base and essentially just imitate how the particular science or field "sounds like". Unfortunately, you only learn this gradually and over a long time. If you learn stuff through forums, Reddit, HN, blogs, substacks etc. it can be very misleading from the first-person experience because you will soak up lots of nonsense as well. Reading actual books and taking real courses is still very much relevant.
HN and co. are more like the cacophony of what the guy on the street thinks. Very noisy, and only supposed to be a small treat over rigorous study. You shouldn't expect to see someone truly breaking new ground in this comment thread. If it disturbs you, you can skip the comments. But trying to "forbid" it, or gatekeep is futile. It's like trying to tell people in a bar not to discuss how bad the soccer team coach is, because they don't really have the relevant expertise. Yeah, sure, but people just wanna chat and throw ideas around. It's on the reader to know not to take it too seriously.
ISWYM but the problem isn't really people making suggestions, but the way they make suggestions that grates. If Mr Internet-random-guy wants to introduce the issue of lossy compression then by all means ask why not, but don't say they should.
It comes across as arrogance, probably because it is, then it sucks up plenty of the time of others who do actually know the subject, putting something right.
Even more bloody annoying is when people ask when even the most immediate web search would get the answer. Wikipedia is usually a very good place to start. I guess that for these people, the cost is externalising it to other's wasted time.
Then again, we all take turns at being the stupid one, so am I to complain.
It's inherent in reading comments. And it's also inherent in encountering mere mortals in the real world. And remember how the most annoying and stupid people keep going on about how all the people they meet are stupid and annoying. There's no point in piling on another layer. Close the tab, or comment constructively and charitably. Else you end up with stuff like the badX subreddits (badhistory, badphilosophy) who get their adrenaline/dopamine fix by seeking explanations they see as ignorant/naive/arrogant and sneering at it while self-aggrandizing and feeling like they are in the inner circle who know it all.
The other thing is, you never see all the people who do go to Wikipedia, google or check a book. They won't comment "Hello I'm not commenting now because I went to Wikipedia". They just don't comment.
And Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."
People are more prone to comment out of frustration than other feelings.
So I get where you're coming from. But I'd suggest that a place like HN is in fact a place for random people to inject their half-baked takes. It is a just discussion board where lots of the comments will be uninformed or wrong. Take it or leave it. If you want something else, you need to find more niche communities that are - by the nature of it - more difficult to find and less public, including IRL discussion, clubs, conferences etc. But it has its use: we, you and me can jump in any thread and type out what we think after 2 minutes and get some response. But of course someone even more novice might think that we know more than just that 2 minutes consideration, and they learn our junk opinion as if it was the result of long experience. It's unavoidable, since nobody knows who the rest of the commenters are.
Online discussions are incredibly noisy, and often even the people who seem to use the jargon and seem knowledgeable to the outsider can be totally off-base and essentially just imitate how the particular science or field "sounds like". Unfortunately, you only learn this gradually and over a long time. If you learn stuff through forums, Reddit, HN, blogs, substacks etc. it can be very misleading from the first-person experience because you will soak up lots of nonsense as well. Reading actual books and taking real courses is still very much relevant.
HN and co. are more like the cacophony of what the guy on the street thinks. Very noisy, and only supposed to be a small treat over rigorous study. You shouldn't expect to see someone truly breaking new ground in this comment thread. If it disturbs you, you can skip the comments. But trying to "forbid" it, or gatekeep is futile. It's like trying to tell people in a bar not to discuss how bad the soccer team coach is, because they don't really have the relevant expertise. Yeah, sure, but people just wanna chat and throw ideas around. It's on the reader to know not to take it too seriously.