> it is hard to decipher if it is even worth arguing at all Then why? I mean, I put it in parentheses for a reason man. I mean, you seem to be saying that I

> it is hard to decipher if it is even worth arguing at all Then why? I mean, I put it in parentheses for a reason man. I mean, you seem to be saying that I can't tell the difference between automobiles and, what? horses? Surely if the difference is that great it should be easy to come up with lots of solid points to "change my mind"? Since you're taking the trouble to comment anyway? In your sib comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23071602 you seem to be making some solid points, but from my POV it still sounds like "learn the thing" where "the thing" does what I can already do without it, or it enables me to do stuff that I'm not actually interested in doing. Bottom line: if you want to argue please do it with facts and not dismissive condescension. (I've got plenty of that already without your help, thanks.)