2 ms·

Which without context that is not given I certainly didn't know, so it isn't safe to expect others to know to. Are we supposed to dig into people's profiles to

Which without context that is not given I certainly didn't know, so it isn't safe to expect others to know to. Are we supposed to dig into people's profiles to derive relevant context?

Brian_K_White 2y ago
One could also argue that this is merely being conversant on the topic one is conversing on. And not taking on the job of police when you don't know as much as you think you do, such as the speakers whose speech you presume to police. You might not know the significance of "textfiles says no", but you do know that in general it's a thing that on HN, sometimes the rando is no rando, and you do know that you're not dang. That's all it takes to avoid looking like a douche. And soon enough some comment or other would fill in the significance, from someone else looking like a douche and having it explained to them. Jason could have added "Internet Archive here, it's not that." But he would have to say that in front of every comment he ever writes, which I think would get old for him and probably no small number of other people would criticize that too "yesss we know you work for IA FFS get over yourself..." I think it's fine for him to just speak and let everyone else take care of themselves.
- dspillett 2y ago
  > but you do know that in general it's a thing that on HN, sometimes the rando is no rand Sometimes. More often than many other places we could mention. But in the majority of cases, even here, a rando is a rando. And if the randos see the accepted conventions being ignored without comment it might encourage them to do it more. > Jason could have added I'd argue should have. > But he would have to say that in front of every comment he ever writes Only comments where it is significantly relevant, or in this case where his experience and proximity to the issue at have might be considered enough to ignore the standard commenting conventions.

Which without context that is not given I certainly didn't know, so it isn't safe to expect others to know to. Are we supposed to dig into people's profiles to derive relevant context?

Brian_K_White 2y ago

One could also argue that this is merely being conversant on the topic one is conversing on. And not taking on the job of police when you don't know as much as you think you do, such as the speakers whose speech you presume to police. You might not know the significance of "textfiles says no", but you do know that in general it's a thing that on HN, sometimes the rando is no rando, and you do know that you're not dang. That's all it takes to avoid looking like a douche. And soon enough some comment or other would fill in the significance, from someone else looking like a douche and having it explained to them. Jason could have added "Internet Archive here, it's not that." But he would have to say that in front of every comment he ever writes, which I think would get old for him and probably no small number of other people would criticize that too "yesss we know you work for IA FFS get over yourself..." I think it's fine for him to just speak and let everyone else take care of themselves.

dspillett 2y ago
> but you do know that in general it's a thing that on HN, sometimes the rando is no rand Sometimes. More often than many other places we could mention. But in the majority of cases, even here, a rando is a rando. And if the randos see the accepted conventions being ignored without comment it might encourage them to do it more. > Jason could have added I'd argue should have. > But he would have to say that in front of every comment he ever writes Only comments where it is significantly relevant, or in this case where his experience and proximity to the issue at have might be considered enough to ignore the standard commenting conventions.