> I gave an emotional response. Neither your topic nor this place suit emotional debates. > I'm upset that Hacker News is overwhelming negative ... Perhaps y

> I gave an emotional response. Neither your topic nor this place suit emotional debates. > I'm upset that Hacker News is overwhelming negative ... Perhaps you should set your emotional upset aside and consider why, instead of blindly rejecting all of HN because of how HN's rejection makes you feel. > ... focusing on current technology shortcomings There is a lot of that here, yes, but that has not been the sole "focus" of HN commenters on this topic. I find it easy to ignore and dismiss comments that focus solely on this , and still participate in discussions involving other aspects. Perhaps you should too. > You say the topic has been debated. I say it hasn't. I have participated in the debates, rationally (i.e., without emotions). I say you haven't. > It's been roundly rejected. That's not debate. I disagree that it's been roundly rejected, but even assuming so (for the sake of this point): a debate does not require "both sides" to win some votes. Unanimous rejection after consideration is a valid result of debates. ---- > ... When asked why he said "with all this shit, there's got to be a pony around here!" Nice story. But there's only so far you can stretch a simple analogy. Trust me, in the history of technology, there's often just "shit", no pony. And as more people keep entering this world, more shit keep getting produced and thrown around. In fact, it is ridiculous how easy it is to produce large quantities of it. > ... with all this shit, there's got to be a pony around here! Could it be a donkey instead?