2 ms·

This was covered pretty extensively a week ago, although no one commented on it then: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1599523 http://news.ycombinator.com/i

• RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  ADDED IN EDIT : I wrote what follows when the parent comment had been down-voted to 0. As I write this it's been re-up-voted to 1. Who knows where it will go next - I watch with curiousity, but little understanding. ================ Bizarre - some people up-vote people who cross-reference items about the same topic, and others down-vote. I guess it's my background in wiki technology, always wanting to cross-reference and make things tidy, as opposed to the forum mind-set that seems happy to tolerate sprawling, ephemeral discussions rather than create something of lasting value. For one, I hate wasting effort, and wasting other people's efforts. I thought that cross-referencing tuff would help prevent duplication of effort, and generally enrich the information, but clearly there are others who not only disagree, but actively think it's of negative value. <shrug> I don't understand that, but would be happy to read an explanation.
  • mattmillr 16y ago
    I appreciate the cross-referencing, as you provided four additional sources for more information. I'm guessing that in this case, however, your phrasing may have come across as dismissive. Its not hard to imagine an overly-critical reader (someone who isn't giving your motives the benefit of the doubt) seeing "This was covered pretty extensively a week ago, although no one commented on it then" and inferring "so why are you posting it again? Here I'll add a bunch of links to prove I'm right." I could be wrong.
    • RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      > ... your phrasing may have come across as dismissive ... OK, noted, thanks. I'll bear that in mind.