35 ms·
You are arguing semantics. You say exactly the same thing as the author, but define "unimportant" differently. While it is important to be on the same page rega
by Fargren 14y ago
You are arguing semantics. You say exactly the same thing as the author, but define "unimportant" differently. While it is important to be on the same page regarding to what we mean by the words we use if we want to have meaningful discussion, I think it's pretty obvious what the author meant by "unimportant". And it clearly isn't "absolutely meaningless", as you seem to imply.
- joesb 14y agoOn the other hand, the author does not have to define "unimportant" that way. Step 1: Define "unimportant" as "actually important" Step 2: Write catchy title based on new definition, making it sounds controversial. Step 3: Profit?
- saraid216 14y agoHe isn't implying "absolutely meaningless". That would be something like rewriting the entirety of Windows 7 in Brainfuck. Which someone should totally do, just so that I can laugh once.
- its_so_on 14y agoIt is obvious what the author means by "unimportant" and they're very important things. Pure clickbait. It's like me writing an article, "work on the worst ideas you have". Care to click to find out what I mean by "worst"? Of course you do.