2 ms·

> So downvoters, remember what that button means: it means this is a low-signal or otherwise net-negative value comment on the thread. It explicitly doesn’t mea

by NhanH 3y ago

> So downvoters, remember what that button means: it means this is a low-signal or otherwise net-negative value comment on the thread. It explicitly doesn’t mean I disagree. Unfortunately, this is your personal interpretation of the downvote buttons. I agree with your interpretation, in fact, but it is not the norm. And confidently telling people to "get lost" while being misguided is very much not appreciated here. Here is some comment from the horse's mouth more than a decade ago on this very same topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

benreesman 3y ago
Pardon my sloppy phrasing, I was rushing this out with my thumb because the GP was going grey fast. I meant that in the “karma bombing” sense as far as “explicitly” goes. And I should be more clear in both this subthread (as well as one other comment) that the guidelines I’m referring to aren’t the succinct ones on the literal guidelines page, but rather the evolved apparent consensus under “the @dang administration”. This is a pretty natural and healthy seeming extrapolation of the idea that rigor should go up as contentiousness goes up, something I personally fail in too often even these days, but will always apologize for failing in. Threads about OpenAI have set a new record for karma bombing proportional to front-page exposure, blowing away classics like crypto and social media and patent law, I’ve got at least one or two tuples of adjacent comments where the high-quality one got bombed and was on a #1 submission and the far worse form of the argument got too many upvotes on a less-engaged submission. I’ll decline (for now at least) to speculate on the mechanism/explanation around this (apparent) trend, but it’s inching into “concerning”.

by NhanH 3y ago

benreesman 3y ago

Pardon my sloppy phrasing, I was rushing this out with my thumb because the GP was going grey fast. I meant that in the “karma bombing” sense as far as “explicitly” goes. And I should be more clear in both this subthread (as well as one other comment) that the guidelines I’m referring to aren’t the succinct ones on the literal guidelines page, but rather the evolved apparent consensus under “the @dang administration”. This is a pretty natural and healthy seeming extrapolation of the idea that rigor should go up as contentiousness goes up, something I personally fail in too often even these days, but will always apologize for failing in. Threads about OpenAI have set a new record for karma bombing proportional to front-page exposure, blowing away classics like crypto and social media and patent law, I’ve got at least one or two tuples of adjacent comments where the high-quality one got bombed and was on a #1 submission and the far worse form of the argument got too many upvotes on a less-engaged submission. I’ll decline (for now at least) to speculate on the mechanism/explanation around this (apparent) trend, but it’s inching into “concerning”.