I think you missed the point. I would assume most people on hacker news know how to read urls and do it on a daily basis. For you the cost of finding where a link goes is minimal.
Most people elsewhere do not know how to read urls. Their cost for learning to read urls and remember how to find out where a link goes is higher than they are willing to pay and statistical more expensive than not doing so despite the risks!
Most people elsewhere do not know how to read urls
True, and probably an understatement. Many people, perhaps even most of them, don't know what a URL is, let alone how to interpret its components.
These are the people whose ultimate means of navigating to something is to type its name, or something like its name, into the browser search box. Assuming they pay any attention to URLs at all, they presumably treat (e.g.) the "www.mcdonalds.com" that they see on a print ad as a special magic keyword that can be typed into Google. And so it is.
> Most people elsewhere do not know how to read urls. Their cost for learning to read urls and remember how to find out where a link goes is higher than they are willing to pay and statistical more expensive than not doing so despite the risks!
It doesn't even need to be statistical more expensive to be rational. Perhaps users may just be unable to forecast how much learning to read URLs will benefit them, and thus risk-aversion [1] prevents them from making the time investment.
[1] The use of risk-aversion on this meta-level is kind-of ironic, if you don't look too close.
Most people elsewhere do not know how to read urls. Their cost for learning to read urls and remember how to find out where a link goes is higher than they are willing to pay and statistical more expensive than not doing so despite the risks!