On the main topic: I ran into this recently when someone said it was no big deal that someone in a story was a "drama queen". I was like, um, that's someone who

On the main topic: I ran into this recently when someone said it was no big deal that someone in a story was a "drama queen". I was like, um, that's someone who unnecessarily escalates conflicts, of course that's the type you want to distance yourself from, are you using a different meaning? I cited whatever sources I could find that spoke to the issue, which agreed with my usage, and the other party insisted it was wrong but couldn't find backing for their own usage. EDIT: Another great example of the dynamic on HN. One time I expressed skepticism that airlines could rearrange seats in a particular way because they were constrained in how they could reconfigure the layout, and would need special permission for a new configuration. The topic experts were happy to roll their eyes and lecture me that "the FAA doesn't regulate configurations" but didn't seem to notice that there might be ambiguity in what is being referred to by a "configuration", and so could have clarified what kinds of changes are vs aren't permitted in a way that sidesteps the jargon. Instead, they just assumed a) I was using the term correctly, and b) I was making an obviously wrong statement under that correct definition. This then let them conclude c) the only reason I would persist in being skeptical is because I automatically refuse to listen to experts. The right approach would have been to 1) identify how the word "configuration" is used in this domain and how it might differ from the lay meaning of that term, and 2) use one's domain expertise to give detail ("color") on what the boundary is between changes that do vs. don't need approval, and why the airline's plan would fall squarely in the latter. That would have made it a clarifying, enlightening experience for all readers, rather than a game of "I'm high status, you're not". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22665250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22665250