3 ms·

This is one of the caveats of debating in the HN echo-chamber... People start making bizarre analogies using 'parallels' from tech (in this case, SMTP), for the

This is one of the caveats of debating in the HN echo-chamber... People start making bizarre analogies using 'parallels' from tech (in this case, SMTP), for the sake of it, hoping that the blatant inaccuracies of their comparison will fly over the heads of the audience, in favour of their esoteric appeal. Take some figures plucked from thin-air and you have a recipe for retort success! Thankfully, it's only a caveat that happens 20/80 of the time, sort of like how TCP does such a good job of filtering out the riff-raff. /s

rsync 9y ago
"People start making bizarre analogies using 'parallels' from tech (in this case, SMTP), for the sake of it, hoping that the blatant inaccuracies of their comparison will fly over the heads of the audience, in favour of their esoteric appeal." I thought the analogy to SMTP was a very good one and, considering the audience, was not esoteric at all.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sarreph 9y ago
  My mail usage is far more agnostic to its protocol than my web usage is. Google may hold far too much data to generate a profile of me and relevant ads, but using GMail doesn't fundamentally affect the content of my email or inbox, or even how I use email. But if I switch tabs to YouTube (i.e. The Web), targeted content and traffic funnelling is immediately apparent. You proved my point about esoteric appeal because my argument was opposite to how you viewed it: that us techies get blinded by irrelevant concepts because we can relate to them, that are otherwise esoteric outside the HN bubble.