3 ms·

This was given as an example, not for you to straw man about the gamepad.

by djmips 6y ago

klodolph 6y ago
Don’t know what you’re getting at. You seem to have taken offense, and I think it’s because you misinterpreted what I wrote.
- kbenson 6y ago
  Your comment seemed to be positioned as a refutation of the prior comment (it could have been meant as an aside, but without something to indicate that it can be hard not to assume it's a counter). Unfortunately, if it was meant as a counter to the prior argument, countering just the example put forth does not actually address the argument put forth, so it it looks like a straw man argument itself (that is, addressing an example, even if it was presented by others, without making any attempt to address the position itself).
  - klodolph 6y ago
    > ... countering just the example put forth does not actually address the argument put forth ... The particular example put forth was a good example, and it's worth responding to. If you can come up with a better example, I'd love to hear it. My argument is that the timing of inputs and outputs to consoles is heavily quantized, which gives you a lot more freedom if you want to create an accurate software implementation--depending on whether your goals are to emulate existing games or serve as a platform for experimentation. For example, the NES has lots of "timing tricks" but they are internal to the console, and at the scales it takes to render a frame of video, you can do a lot of work in software. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > In Comments > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > If you can come up with a better example, I'd love to hear it. I don't have a side in this discussion. I just stepped in to note one reason why you might have gotten the reply you did, since you specifically noted "Don’t know what you’re getting at." I was merely attempting to illustrate why I thought you might have received the response you did. > My argument is that the timing of inputs and outputs to consoles is heavily quantized... That's probably a good argument. That's not what you replied with though. If you had, I don't think you would have gotten the response you did. >> > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That's as much a point against your comment as against the person that responded to you. Responding to a specific example instead of the position is not responding to the strongest possible interpretation. Then you get responses like you did. Again, I'm not taking a position on this. I only bothered to comment at at because you seemed to indicate you didn't know why you got the response you did. Honestly, I thought you were likely presenting it as a slight tangent, not an argument, since it's fairly common here for people to view any response as someone arguing the other side once they get slightly heated in an argument.
      - klodolph 6y ago
        > I was merely attempting to illustrate why I thought you might have received the response you did. Oh, that's completely unnecessary. When I said, "Don't know what you're getting at," I was hoping that the commenter understood something that I didn't. > That's probably a good argument. That's not what you replied with though. If you had, I don't think you would have gotten the response you did. This is a good illustration of why the guidelines are there in the first place. Comment #1 was the weaker argument, comment #2 was the stronger comment. If you have a discussion with someone, you can get from comment #1 to #2 and beyond. Telling me that if I had written comment #2 first is... not helpful! Because the process of writing comment #2 involved reading replies to comment #1!

This was given as an example, not for you to straw man about the gamepad.

by djmips 6y ago

This was given as an example, not for you to straw man about the gamepad.

Don’t know what you’re getting at. You seem to have taken offense, and I think it’s because you misinterpreted what I wrote.

kbenson 6y ago
Your comment seemed to be positioned as a refutation of the prior comment (it could have been meant as an aside, but without something to indicate that it can be hard not to assume it's a counter). Unfortunately, if it was meant as a counter to the prior argument, countering just the example put forth does not actually address the argument put forth, so it it looks like a straw man argument itself (that is, addressing an example, even if it was presented by others, without making any attempt to address the position itself).
- klodolph 6y ago
  > ... countering just the example put forth does not actually address the argument put forth ... The particular example put forth was a good example, and it's worth responding to. If you can come up with a better example, I'd love to hear it. My argument is that the timing of inputs and outputs to consoles is heavily quantized, which gives you a lot more freedom if you want to create an accurate software implementation--depending on whether your goals are to emulate existing games or serve as a platform for experimentation. For example, the NES has lots of "timing tricks" but they are internal to the console, and at the scales it takes to render a frame of video, you can do a lot of work in software. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > In Comments > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > If you can come up with a better example, I'd love to hear it. I don't have a side in this discussion. I just stepped in to note one reason why you might have gotten the reply you did, since you specifically noted "Don’t know what you’re getting at." I was merely attempting to illustrate why I thought you might have received the response you did. > My argument is that the timing of inputs and outputs to consoles is heavily quantized... That's probably a good argument. That's not what you replied with though. If you had, I don't think you would have gotten the response you did. >> > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That's as much a point against your comment as against the person that responded to you. Responding to a specific example instead of the position is not responding to the strongest possible interpretation. Then you get responses like you did. Again, I'm not taking a position on this. I only bothered to comment at at because you seemed to indicate you didn't know why you got the response you did. Honestly, I thought you were likely presenting it as a slight tangent, not an argument, since it's fairly common here for people to view any response as someone arguing the other side once they get slightly heated in an argument.
    - klodolph 6y ago
      > I was merely attempting to illustrate why I thought you might have received the response you did. Oh, that's completely unnecessary. When I said, "Don't know what you're getting at," I was hoping that the commenter understood something that I didn't. > That's probably a good argument. That's not what you replied with though. If you had, I don't think you would have gotten the response you did. This is a good illustration of why the guidelines are there in the first place. Comment #1 was the weaker argument, comment #2 was the stronger comment. If you have a discussion with someone, you can get from comment #1 to #2 and beyond. Telling me that if I had written comment #2 first is... not helpful! Because the process of writing comment #2 involved reading replies to comment #1!