3 ms·

my comment was polite, fact-based and intended to help save other HN readers time, yet voted into negatives. you come back with something rude and voted up. the

my comment was polite, fact-based and intended to help save other HN readers time, yet voted into negatives. you come back with something rude and voted up. the Internet sucks sometimes.

jquery 16y ago
It's not hard to see the decline. A year ago, pithy, baseless insults typically languished at 1 point or went into the negatives. Now they're getting voted up more and more. I wonder what PG has in mind to fix this, or if he has the time/inclination these days.
Semiapies 16y ago
You were whining about a title. Worse, you were whining about an obvious metaphor being "misleading", which only makes sense unless you expect HN readers to believe concepts can literally, physically copulate. There is nothing polite or fact-based about that. You were just making a complaint that was neither relevant nor useful.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  I did not interpret the title as "[Two] Ideas Having Sex" I interpreted it as "Ideas [Had While] Having Sex." But there was no sex in the article. Therefore, I concluded that the title included sex merely for the titilation factor and to boost readership. Thus, as I originally said, it looked misleading to me. And my comment was relevant and intended to be useful. Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with concise, specific criticism about a submitted article if the intent is to help improve the quality of HN as a resource. YMMV.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    Please. Your misreading the title is no grounds for whining about link-baiting, and offering it as an excuse indicates you did not bother to actually read the article in any detail. YMMV, but I don't see anything useful about "tl;dr: nobody has sex in article"-style remarks, no matter how you frame them. I want to see fewer of such, and I will continue to try to discourage them, but I will not further respond to you in this thread.
b-e-p 16y ago
Did you not interpret it as "ideas having sex"? How else could you interpret it?
- kenj0418 16y ago
  Ideas are always having sex. And I'm usually the one that has to clean up the whiteboard afterward.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  ideas [while] having sex because I've heard/seen/thought the same thing many times before, and with similar patterns such as: thoughts while drinking problem-solving in the shower etc.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    But to be analogous to "ideas having sex" it'd have to be "thoughts drinking" or "ideas showering".

my comment was polite, fact-based and intended to help save other HN readers time, yet voted into negatives. you come back with something rude and voted up. the Internet sucks sometimes.

jquery 16y ago

It's not hard to see the decline. A year ago, pithy, baseless insults typically languished at 1 point or went into the negatives. Now they're getting voted up more and more. I wonder what PG has in mind to fix this, or if he has the time/inclination these days.

Semiapies 16y ago

You were whining about a title. Worse, you were whining about an obvious metaphor being "misleading", which only makes sense unless you expect HN readers to believe concepts can literally, physically copulate. There is nothing polite or fact-based about that. You were just making a complaint that was neither relevant nor useful.

mkramlich 16y ago
I did not interpret the title as "[Two] Ideas Having Sex" I interpreted it as "Ideas [Had While] Having Sex." But there was no sex in the article. Therefore, I concluded that the title included sex merely for the titilation factor and to boost readership. Thus, as I originally said, it looked misleading to me. And my comment was relevant and intended to be useful. Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with concise, specific criticism about a submitted article if the intent is to help improve the quality of HN as a resource. YMMV.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Please. Your misreading the title is no grounds for whining about link-baiting, and offering it as an excuse indicates you did not bother to actually read the article in any detail. YMMV, but I don't see anything useful about "tl;dr: nobody has sex in article"-style remarks, no matter how you frame them. I want to see fewer of such, and I will continue to try to discourage them, but I will not further respond to you in this thread.

b-e-p 16y ago

Did you not interpret it as "ideas having sex"? How else could you interpret it?

kenj0418 16y ago
Ideas are always having sex. And I'm usually the one that has to clean up the whiteboard afterward.
mkramlich 16y ago
ideas [while] having sex because I've heard/seen/thought the same thing many times before, and with similar patterns such as: thoughts while drinking problem-solving in the shower etc.
- hugh3 16y ago
  But to be analogous to "ideas having sex" it'd have to be "thoughts drinking" or "ideas showering".