<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>cambalache</author><text>Both examples are wrong. Lots of economists working on inequality , it is even a hot topic.
Your physics example is so vague that is meaningless. Name one promising theory&amp;#x2F;approach in physics which is not getting interest because it goes against &amp;quot;the currently dominant theory of the field&amp;quot;.Tip: LQG does not count.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rbavocadotree</author><text>Two areas where I have a little experience:&lt;p&gt;Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You&amp;#x27;ve probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It&amp;#x27;s unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it&amp;#x27;s focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors.&lt;p&gt;Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the currently dominant theory in your 
field (even if there has been no progress in decades).</text></item><item><author>majos</author><text>This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I&amp;#x27;ve seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they&amp;#x27;ve all worked on similar things.&lt;p&gt;Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: &amp;quot;If only other people understood what problems are worth working on! Especially in the well-studied areas of essays, Lisp, and venture funding! Too bad they do not. Well, goodbye.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Fashionable Problems</title><url>http://paulgraham.com/fp.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>QuesnayJr</author><text>I genuinely don&amp;#x27;t understand where these ideas about economics come from.  Inequality is a hot topic, and it has been for years.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rbavocadotree</author><text>Two areas where I have a little experience:&lt;p&gt;Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You&amp;#x27;ve probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It&amp;#x27;s unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it&amp;#x27;s focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors.&lt;p&gt;Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the currently dominant theory in your 
field (even if there has been no progress in decades).</text></item><item><author>majos</author><text>This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I&amp;#x27;ve seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they&amp;#x27;ve all worked on similar things.&lt;p&gt;Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: &amp;quot;If only other people understood what problems are worth working on! Especially in the well-studied areas of essays, Lisp, and venture funding! Too bad they do not. Well, goodbye.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Fashionable Problems</title><url>http://paulgraham.com/fp.html</url></story>