2 ms·

I'm not contemptuous or mocking, and I'm sorry it came across that way. I am annoyed at having my time wasted by what I feel is a clickbait article. Given the

I'm not contemptuous or mocking, and I'm sorry it came across that way. I am annoyed at having my time wasted by what I feel is a clickbait article. Given the article title, the accusation of straw-manning is really unfair. Your comment would also have been better without the jab; if you're familiar with the field then we both know why I left science for software, and it isn't because of a lack of jobs.

Cushman 2y ago
Gently: The snark you’re getting is undeserved, but you are doing the “but why male models?” thing. You gotta make a left turn here :) Let’s reset: Hey, did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo? Did they actually? Despite all the reasons they wouldn’t? If they did, why? Was it a mistake or on purpose? Neither one quite makes sense. Those are interesting questions! But there’s no alleged secrets leak, and there’s nothing else that’s interesting about that specific picture. You could say it’s implied somehow, but in that case you really got got by anti-clickbait. “Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?” is the whole riddle, and the answer is the whole blog post.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Well, I think the (wouldn't really call it snark, more accurate dissection) is deserved, and instructive! But otherwise I think you're right. They are interesting questions, and gnarfgabrl (or whatever) seemed obtusely resistant, to the point of needlessly quarrelsome for quarrels sake, of appreciating that genuine interestingness.
keepamovin 2y ago
To base an adjudication of the accusation of straw manning on an article title is proving my point so thanks. Hahaha! :) Your "apology" would be better (and real) without the mislaying of responsibility: you cannot be sorry for "how it came across" (ie, other people's reactions, not your responsibility). You can only be sorry, if you think you have something to be sorry for, for what you did. Otherwise it seems like a fake apology where you pretend the blame is other people's reactions, rather than how you acted. Hahaha! :) Get it? Yeah, anyway. :) I just felt you were being deliberately provocative based off an incomplete understanding/reading of the article, for attention (mocking genuine outrage). Which is basically live straw manning HN for selfish reasons, so I attacked with insight. Was i wrong?

Cushman 2y ago

Gently: The snark you’re getting is undeserved, but you are doing the “but why male models?” thing. You gotta make a left turn here :) Let’s reset: Hey, did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo? Did they actually? Despite all the reasons they wouldn’t? If they did, why? Was it a mistake or on purpose? Neither one quite makes sense. Those are interesting questions! But there’s no alleged secrets leak, and there’s nothing else that’s interesting about that specific picture. You could say it’s implied somehow, but in that case you really got got by anti-clickbait. “Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?” is the whole riddle, and the answer is the whole blog post.

keepamovin 2y ago
Well, I think the (wouldn't really call it snark, more accurate dissection) is deserved, and instructive! But otherwise I think you're right. They are interesting questions, and gnarfgabrl (or whatever) seemed obtusely resistant, to the point of needlessly quarrelsome for quarrels sake, of appreciating that genuine interestingness.

keepamovin 2y ago

To base an adjudication of the accusation of straw manning on an article title is proving my point so thanks. Hahaha! :) Your "apology" would be better (and real) without the mislaying of responsibility: you cannot be sorry for "how it came across" (ie, other people's reactions, not your responsibility). You can only be sorry, if you think you have something to be sorry for, for what you did. Otherwise it seems like a fake apology where you pretend the blame is other people's reactions, rather than how you acted. Hahaha! :) Get it? Yeah, anyway. :) I just felt you were being deliberately provocative based off an incomplete understanding/reading of the article, for attention (mocking genuine outrage). Which is basically live straw manning HN for selfish reasons, so I attacked with insight. Was i wrong?