3 ms·

But the discussion is almost never about the article. Look around! Consider that this one isn't. I reviewed the sibling's comment history. - Well that's a p

But the discussion is almost never about the article. Look around! Consider that this one isn't. I reviewed the sibling's comment history. - Well that's a problem - If stimulus is people spending their money in the marketplace to meet their needs, I'd say it works quite well. - Holding on to the best explanation until they find a better one, you mean? Yes, of course they are - The writer was belittling the OP so maybe direct that elsewhere - Nostalgia? - What is "woke" political stuff, specifically, vs non-woke? - I want to see x rays! - Linkding is great, and has some browser extensions to inject your favourites into relevant search pages on the likes of google, ddg, bing, etc, which was a nice idea I hadn't considered before - Have you tried kbin? - It's both hilarious and unintuitive, but for some people their personal familiarity trumps most other things None of those are about the article! Great, engaging comments. Nice pointers to interesting tools -- Linkding, kbin. Some economics, some psychology, some tech. Not a single reference to the article, none on the same topic as the article. :)

motoxpro 3y ago
Good points. Especially about our discussion here. I guess I would narrow it and say as long as it’s not a commentary on the article itself then no worries! If someone is commenting on the article without reading then I still feel like I would rather them read it first so we can have the same definitions.
- nuclearnice3 3y ago
  > If someone is commenting on the article without reading Yeah, I hear you. I note in my case, I read the article and posted about the clarifying sentence. I did find it funny that so many people were in an animated discussion about the interpretation of the headline. gremlinsinc: "how does it know there isn't one further out past the observable universe?" doctoboggan: "the title is a little unclear, but I read it as the most distant known supermassive black hole" dotnet00: "I feel like contextually it's pretty obvious " Obviously without reading the first sentence of the article.

motoxpro 3y ago

Good points. Especially about our discussion here. I guess I would narrow it and say as long as it’s not a commentary on the article itself then no worries! If someone is commenting on the article without reading then I still feel like I would rather them read it first so we can have the same definitions.

nuclearnice3 3y ago
> If someone is commenting on the article without reading Yeah, I hear you. I note in my case, I read the article and posted about the clarifying sentence. I did find it funny that so many people were in an animated discussion about the interpretation of the headline. gremlinsinc: "how does it know there isn't one further out past the observable universe?" doctoboggan: "the title is a little unclear, but I read it as the most distant known supermassive black hole" dotnet00: "I feel like contextually it's pretty obvious " Obviously without reading the first sentence of the article.