5 ms·
> That's a bit disingenuous and short-sighted view from people not knowing or understanding the industry, market, technology and manufacturing challenges. For
by orhmeh09 3y ago
> That's a bit disingenuous and short-sighted view from people not knowing or understanding the industry, market, technology and manufacturing challenges.
For clarification -- disingenuous is defined as:
> not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does
In your post, are you claiming there's a shadowy group of people who at the same time are both unknowledgeable but also conspiring to hide their own knowledge?
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoSorry, I'm not a native English speaker. "disingenuous " was the wrong word in that context. I meant to use it as a synonym for "unfair" and made a mistake. >In your post, are you claiming there's a shadowy group of people who at the same time are both unknowledgeable but also conspiring to hide their own knowledge? No, that's nowhere near close to what I claimed. I think my post was clear on what I meant despite my mistake: that people are too quick to blame e-ink the company for malice without understanding the technical challenges around industrialization of such technology and the economic factors of the e-ink-like products market (profit margins, supply/demand) that drive competition and investments, or lack thereof, in this tech.
- kragen 3y agoit is definitely not a synonym for "unfair"; it is a serious attack on the integrity of the person you were responding to, and you should apologize to them
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoI do believe the first word in my previous comment was "sorry" for the mistake, and unfortunately I can't edit that comment anymore to correct the mistake. Also, I have no reason to apologies to the commenter as he did not provide any evidence to support his claims that "e-ink is evil" in order for his integrity to be affected, to warrant an apology for my counter-arguments, nor do I think the original commenter is petty enough to be offended by my honest mistake, which I rectified later.
- kragen 3y agoyou called them a liar who was pretending to be stupid, which is what 'disingenuous' means to me, that counts as a reason to apologize
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoI have already before pointing it out, what more do you want?
- bemusedthrow75 3y agoI'm not the person who apologised or the person who was apologised to, but the following, to me, reads like an appropriate apology in the context: > Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. "disingenuous " was the wrong word in that context. I meant to use it as a synonym for "unfair" and made a mistake. This particular mistake (assuming disingenuous means a little less than it does) is not particularly uncommon among native english speakers (or on HN, at that). FWIW: > you called them a liar who was pretending to be stupid The "pretending to be stupid" is not an essential part of the definition above (merely "typically by"). Finally, Merriam-Webster offers up other definitions: lacking in candor giving a false appearance of simple frankness These don't fit particularly with the strident definition you're using. English words are complex, with contextual and flexible meanings. You've picked one definition. And then you've attacked someone's integrity on the basis of it, which is exactly what you're arguing has been done to someone else. Don't be this guy.
- yellowapple 3y agoThe "typically" in that definition would suggest that "claiming there's a shadowy group of people who at the same time are both unknowledgeable but also conspiring to hide their own knowledge" is unnecessary to claim disingenuity. You're on the right track, though; it's worth asking if the people criticizing patents and their stranglehold on innovation are not being candid or sincere in doing so. (The answer IMO is "no, they're being very candid and sincere, in stark contrast to most defenders of contemporary patent law", but it's nonetheless the more relevant question).