3 ms·
I'm a fluent English speaker, and I'm also having a hard time figuring out your point. And it seems ambiguous what exactly you're calling "flaming crap".
by recursive 6y ago
I'm a fluent English speaker, and I'm also having a hard time figuring out your point. And it seems ambiguous what exactly you're calling "flaming crap".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tpmx 6y agoPlease do explain how you find it ambiguous what exactly I'm calling "flaming crap". I'm actually quite curious. In fact, I suspect you are lying. But you're not interested once this topic has moved away from the the front page. Reminder: What I posted was: > It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?
- recursive 6y agotpmx: I can't respond to your post since it's dead. There's probably not a way I can convince I'm not lying, but I'm not. "Not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap". I honestly still don't know which flaming crap you're referring to. All I know is that it's technical. For all I can tell, it could quite conceivably be OP. Your entire point is lost on me. I don't see any reason not to solve the technical problem at hand. On the contrary, I think that's a great idea.