3 ms·
> Those that exist today would, but no kernel would have to work like that. That's a pretty weird argument. "Yes, what you say is completely correct, but let'
by kelnos 2y ago
> Those that exist today would, but no kernel would have to work like that.
That's a pretty weird argument. "Yes, what you say is completely correct, but let's imagine a world where you were wrong."
We have what we have, today. We should form conclusions and make decisions based on things that exist, not on things that we might dream up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cxr 2y ago[flagged]
- jolmg 2y ago> it's against the rules here to those kinds of fake quotes. What part of the guidelines are you referring to? Also, despite the quotation marks, I don't think they mean to quote you. They're just rephrasing you as they understood you. Coincidentally enough, I've just done that too in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442007
- cxr 2y ago<https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=13602947 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=13602947> And I didn't mention the guidelines (i.e. newsguidelines.html). On that note, though: > the site guidelines[...] aren't a list of proscribed behaviors but a set of values to internalize. I'd say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" covers this case pretty squarely (from <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15892014#15893789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15892014#15893789>) See also: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38688831#38690517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38688831#38690517> plus lots (and lots) more.