3 ms·

This is as a response to absolute bonkers explanation to how a rocket engine works. I tried to keep good ratio of actual factual explanation to "swipes", which

This is as a response to absolute bonkers explanation to how a rocket engine works. I tried to keep good ratio of actual factual explanation to "swipes", which I think was fully deserved. Sometimes, somebody needs to at least hint you you are telling complete and utter rubbish (ideally backed by some explanation). Now, I don't want to say everybody has to know physics or how an engine works. But if you are starting to explain to people on HN, be ready to get fact-checked. You need to learn some.

dang 5y ago
You can't take that kind of potshot at people regardless of how bonkers their explanation was or you feel it was. Aggression in your reply is much more significant than inaccuracy in the other comment. This is a big deal, because everyone underestimates the negativity of their own comments by (let's say) 10x and overestimates the negativity in other people's comments by another 10x. That makes for a 100x perception gap. This causes people who aren't being careful to blast bile into the the ecosystem here—something that, long term, leads to its destruction. Therefore we all need to be careful. Maybe you don't owe people who know less physics than you better, or don't feel you do, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. Here's what to do instead: if someone else is wrong, and you know more than they do, then patiently provide correct information. Otherwise don't post; or, alternatively, chalk it up to someone being wrong on the internet and just don't post. Punishing the other person, or strutting your stuff superciliously, does not engage curiosity, and isn't conducive to learning nor to curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
burnte 5y ago
I said nothing incorrect, you misunderstood what I was talking about, presumably due to not reading the article we're commenting on. Do you really think I'm wrong saying that fuel is burned and directed out an exhaust nozzle to impart force in the opposite direction of the flow? Am I wrong that the bell is designed to capture as much energy as possible (within constraints) by directing the flow in a single direction? Here's a 5 year old youtube video deascribing it the exact same way: https://youtu.be/l5l3CHWoHSI?t=32 https://youtu.be/l5l3CHWoHSI?t=32 I have absolutely no problem being corrected, but please don't be wrong in your correction, and don't do it with such attitude. You're agressively wrong here.

dang 5y ago

You can't take that kind of potshot at people regardless of how bonkers their explanation was or you feel it was. Aggression in your reply is much more significant than inaccuracy in the other comment. This is a big deal, because everyone underestimates the negativity of their own comments by (let's say) 10x and overestimates the negativity in other people's comments by another 10x. That makes for a 100x perception gap. This causes people who aren't being careful to blast bile into the the ecosystem here—something that, long term, leads to its destruction. Therefore we all need to be careful. Maybe you don't owe people who know less physics than you better, or don't feel you do, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. Here's what to do instead: if someone else is wrong, and you know more than they do, then patiently provide correct information. Otherwise don't post; or, alternatively, chalk it up to someone being wrong on the internet and just don't post. Punishing the other person, or strutting your stuff superciliously, does not engage curiosity, and isn't conducive to learning nor to curious conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

burnte 5y ago

I said nothing incorrect, you misunderstood what I was talking about, presumably due to not reading the article we're commenting on. Do you really think I'm wrong saying that fuel is burned and directed out an exhaust nozzle to impart force in the opposite direction of the flow? Am I wrong that the bell is designed to capture as much energy as possible (within constraints) by directing the flow in a single direction? Here's a 5 year old youtube video deascribing it the exact same way: https://youtu.be/l5l3CHWoHSI?t=32 https://youtu.be/l5l3CHWoHSI?t=32 I have absolutely no problem being corrected, but please don't be wrong in your correction, and don't do it with such attitude. You're agressively wrong here.