4 ms·

Does ISO 8601 fix any of the problems mentioned in the article? It doesn't really seem relevant to me.

sitkack 3y ago
> doesn't really seem relevant to me Isn't this overly 'you' centric? Wouldn't this require access to your inner monologue? Doesn't seem like a referentially invariant supporting argument, to _me_.
- falserum 3y ago
  Charitable interpretation of previous comment would be “I think it does not seem relevant to problems specified in the article”. Iso 8601 is about date formatting, while article is about a bit orthogonal to that. (But I agree/hope that ISO 8601 is the future that is less ambiguous than current state)
  - sitkack 3y ago
    > I think it does not seem relevant to problems specified in the article Is a low effort way to make someone form a rebuttal in response to no argument. It is pseudo intellectual way to sound smart while offering nothing in return. As if that persons opinion has weight because “they don’t see the relevance”, I know lots of people that “don’t see relevance”. Is our responsibility to educate their feigned confusion?
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      I was saying that TrackerFF's post seemed to me to be unrelated to the article, so I was confused why it was posted. I'm sure other HN readers were confused by the comment as well. I was asking for clarification. TrackerFF or someone else could then clarify the relevance, which I and other HN readers would find useful. My confusion wasn't feigned. I'm actually confused how the comment was relevant to the article. Someone being confused and asking for clarification is a common way that conversations progress and learning happens. It's no one's responsibility to comment on HN. If someone wants to discuss this, that person can reply.
    - falserum 3y ago
      Mist likely it was: It’s a low effort proxy for “this comment is most probably written only after only reading the title”
- Thorrez 3y ago
  Sorry, I phrased it confusingly. I should have just said "it doesn't seem relevant".

> doesn't really seem relevant to me Isn't this overly 'you' centric? Wouldn't this require access to your inner monologue? Doesn't seem like a referentially invariant supporting argument, to _me_.

falserum 3y ago
Charitable interpretation of previous comment would be “I think it does not seem relevant to problems specified in the article”. Iso 8601 is about date formatting, while article is about a bit orthogonal to that. (But I agree/hope that ISO 8601 is the future that is less ambiguous than current state)
- sitkack 3y ago
  > I think it does not seem relevant to problems specified in the article Is a low effort way to make someone form a rebuttal in response to no argument. It is pseudo intellectual way to sound smart while offering nothing in return. As if that persons opinion has weight because “they don’t see the relevance”, I know lots of people that “don’t see relevance”. Is our responsibility to educate their feigned confusion?
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    I was saying that TrackerFF's post seemed to me to be unrelated to the article, so I was confused why it was posted. I'm sure other HN readers were confused by the comment as well. I was asking for clarification. TrackerFF or someone else could then clarify the relevance, which I and other HN readers would find useful. My confusion wasn't feigned. I'm actually confused how the comment was relevant to the article. Someone being confused and asking for clarification is a common way that conversations progress and learning happens. It's no one's responsibility to comment on HN. If someone wants to discuss this, that person can reply.
  - falserum 3y ago
    Mist likely it was: It’s a low effort proxy for “this comment is most probably written only after only reading the title”
Thorrez 3y ago
Sorry, I phrased it confusingly. I should have just said "it doesn't seem relevant".