2 ms·
It's not really a response because there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is so encouraging it doesn't do any of what you suggest it does. For insta
by pvg 2y ago
It's not really a response because there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is so encouraging it doesn't do any of what you suggest it does. For instance, you don't have any idea whether the people you think haven't read the article actually haven't. The whole thing is based on effectively unknowable assumptions about comments you find annoying.
We can't nerdsolve our way out of annoying comments. We do know of a great and highly effective way to improve the quality of threads, though - write a good comment yourself.
- lapcat 2y ago> We can't nerdsolve our way out of annoying comments. That wasn't the purpose. I fully realize that annoying comments will arise in any case. > there is simply no telling what 'the bare minimum' is You may be equivocating on this phrase. I'm not proposing some definitive specification of the one true bare minimum, but I'd say that reading the article is a bare minimum, so to speak, for commenting on an article. Don't you agree? Or do you think that commenting on an article without reading it is in fact great and useful? If the latter, then we fundamentally disagree, this entire conversation has been a waste of time, and I wish you would have just said that at the beginning. > you don't have any idea whether the people you think haven't read the article actually haven't. Again, I'm ok with false negatives.