11 ms·

Even more negativity towards this comment of mine, than to some of my other ones, as shown by the greater downvotes. Jeepers creepers! :)

AdieuToLogic 2y ago
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. source: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html HTH
andrewflnr 2y ago
Not-so-subtly mocking the top-level for not replying "yet", when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow, was not a move that made you look smart or nice.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Hey. These are the four simple lines that I wrote above: >Solid questions and comments, layer8. >I notice that the person you replied to has not replied to you yet. >It may be that they will, of course. >But your points are good. (Italics mine, and they were not in my original comment.) You, above: >when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow, I did check the time intervals between the top level comment and layer8's comment, before my first reply. It is over an hour now, so I cannot see the exact times in minutes any more, but IIRC, there was a fairly long gap (in minutes). And I also think I noticed that the top level person did reply to someone else, but not to layer8, by the time I wrote my comment. So I don't see anything wrong in what I said. I even said that they may reply later. You consider that to be: >"Not-so-subtly mocking"? Jeez. I think you are wrong. Then I have nothing further to say to you, except this: >was not a move that made you look smart or nice. Trying to look smart or nice is not the goal in online discussions. At least, I don't think so. You appear to think that. The goal (to me) is to say what you think, otherwise, why write at all? I could just get an LLM to write all my comments, and not care about its hallucinations. I don't try to be smart or nice, nor the reverse. I just put my considered thoughts out there, just like anyone else. Obviously I can be right or wrong, just like anyone else can be. And some points can be subjective, so cannot be said to be definitely either right or wrong.
  - kristiandupont 2y ago
    You were being passive aggressive and adding nothing to the discussion. The fact that you weren't wrong doesn't make any difference.
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      >You were being passive aggressive and adding nothing to the discussion. What arrant nonsense! Don't accuse people falsely or without substantiating your accusation. My comment being referred to above, consisted of four simple short lines. I am not going to bother to paste them here again for a third time. Those HN readers who wish to do so, can go the few needed levels up this thread and check for themselves: Nothing I said in those four lines can be interpreted as being passive-aggressive. I say that you do not know what the heck you are talking about, if you claim that I was passive-aggressive in that comment.
      - smokel 2y ago
        Placing statements on separate lines does come off as somewhat aggressive. It may be subtle, but I got a similar impression.
        fuzztester 2y ago
        Your comment is so hilarious that I need some time to analyse its implications and think of a suitable reply. Mañana.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    If a comment is not at least one of smart or nice, it's a waste of space and attention. That may not be your purpose, but don't act shocked when people respond with negativity.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow Wow. Such wrong claims. I had already replied to you in a sibling comment, refuting your points, but will give one more proof (not that I really need to): _acco, the top level commenter relevant to this discussion, commented at some time, say x. layer8 commented, replying to _acco, 7 hours ago (as can be seen on the page at the time of my writing this comment, i.e. right now). I then replied to layer8, 6 hours ago. _acco replied back to layer8 5 hours ago. All this is visible right now on the page; and if people check it a few hours later, the relative time deltas will remain the same, obviously. (But not if they check after 24 hours, in which case all comments will show as one day ago.) So there was a 1 hour gap between layer8's comment and mine, and a 2 hour gap between layer8's comment and _acco's reply. If you think 2 hours is the same as "almost immediately", as you said above, I have nothing more to say to you, except that our perceptions of time are highly different.
  - xenic 2y ago
    2 hours in a discussion forum, where the discussion spans days or sometimes weeks is certainly an ”almost immediate” response. Perception of time is subjective.
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      Err ... you realize that your argument just shot itself in both left feet? I just love it (not!, but it happens every now and then) when HN users display ignorance of basic logic, on a site for techies, yet. I could use your own argument against you: >is certainly an ”almost immediate” response >Perception of time is subjective. So, you use "certainly", and then "subjective", just after it, in the same argument about the same topic? Brilliant. Do you not realize that by your last sentence above, you make my own case for me?
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    I meant immediately after your reply. At the time I posted, your and acco_'s replies to layer8 both showed as "3 hours" ago. Now they both show as "13 hours ago". Really, I'm being generous in assuming they didn't reply before you. Ed: ah, since the time I wrote this comment, your respective comments are now at 14 and 13 hours. Congrats on your <1hr lead.

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. source: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html HTH

andrewflnr 2y ago

Not-so-subtly mocking the top-level for not replying "yet", when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow, was not a move that made you look smart or nice.

fuzztester 2y ago
Hey. These are the four simple lines that I wrote above: >Solid questions and comments, layer8. >I notice that the person you replied to has not replied to you yet. >It may be that they will, of course. >But your points are good. (Italics mine, and they were not in my original comment.) You, above: >when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow, I did check the time intervals between the top level comment and layer8's comment, before my first reply. It is over an hour now, so I cannot see the exact times in minutes any more, but IIRC, there was a fairly long gap (in minutes). And I also think I noticed that the top level person did reply to someone else, but not to layer8, by the time I wrote my comment. So I don't see anything wrong in what I said. I even said that they may reply later. You consider that to be: >"Not-so-subtly mocking"? Jeez. I think you are wrong. Then I have nothing further to say to you, except this: >was not a move that made you look smart or nice. Trying to look smart or nice is not the goal in online discussions. At least, I don't think so. You appear to think that. The goal (to me) is to say what you think, otherwise, why write at all? I could just get an LLM to write all my comments, and not care about its hallucinations. I don't try to be smart or nice, nor the reverse. I just put my considered thoughts out there, just like anyone else. Obviously I can be right or wrong, just like anyone else can be. And some points can be subjective, so cannot be said to be definitely either right or wrong.
- kristiandupont 2y ago
  You were being passive aggressive and adding nothing to the discussion. The fact that you weren't wrong doesn't make any difference.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    >You were being passive aggressive and adding nothing to the discussion. What arrant nonsense! Don't accuse people falsely or without substantiating your accusation. My comment being referred to above, consisted of four simple short lines. I am not going to bother to paste them here again for a third time. Those HN readers who wish to do so, can go the few needed levels up this thread and check for themselves: Nothing I said in those four lines can be interpreted as being passive-aggressive. I say that you do not know what the heck you are talking about, if you claim that I was passive-aggressive in that comment.
    - smokel 2y ago
      Placing statements on separate lines does come off as somewhat aggressive. It may be subtle, but I got a similar impression.
      - fuzztester 2y ago
        Your comment is so hilarious that I need some time to analyse its implications and think of a suitable reply. Mañana.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  If a comment is not at least one of smart or nice, it's a waste of space and attention. That may not be your purpose, but don't act shocked when people respond with negativity.
fuzztester 2y ago
>when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow Wow. Such wrong claims. I had already replied to you in a sibling comment, refuting your points, but will give one more proof (not that I really need to): _acco, the top level commenter relevant to this discussion, commented at some time, say x. layer8 commented, replying to _acco, 7 hours ago (as can be seen on the page at the time of my writing this comment, i.e. right now). I then replied to layer8, 6 hours ago. _acco replied back to layer8 5 hours ago. All this is visible right now on the page; and if people check it a few hours later, the relative time deltas will remain the same, obviously. (But not if they check after 24 hours, in which case all comments will show as one day ago.) So there was a 1 hour gap between layer8's comment and mine, and a 2 hour gap between layer8's comment and _acco's reply. If you think 2 hours is the same as "almost immediately", as you said above, I have nothing more to say to you, except that our perceptions of time are highly different.
- xenic 2y ago
  2 hours in a discussion forum, where the discussion spans days or sometimes weeks is certainly an ”almost immediate” response. Perception of time is subjective.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    Err ... you realize that your argument just shot itself in both left feet? I just love it (not!, but it happens every now and then) when HN users display ignorance of basic logic, on a site for techies, yet. I could use your own argument against you: >is certainly an ”almost immediate” response >Perception of time is subjective. So, you use "certainly", and then "subjective", just after it, in the same argument about the same topic? Brilliant. Do you not realize that by your last sentence above, you make my own case for me?
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  I meant immediately after your reply. At the time I posted, your and acco_'s replies to layer8 both showed as "3 hours" ago. Now they both show as "13 hours ago". Really, I'm being generous in assuming they didn't reply before you. Ed: ah, since the time I wrote this comment, your respective comments are now at 14 and 13 hours. Congrats on your <1hr lead.