That's a good point. I call this sort of post either a follow-up or a quasidupe, depending on how dupey (?) it is.
The problem is that the HN discussions on a topic cluster tend to be much the same, even if the article itself isn't. But I've taken the [dupe] stigma off this one now.
HN dupes are mostly by value rather than by reference and there's also a kind of topic repetition limit even when the there's more commentary on the topic.
