3 ms·

The topic was the telegraph network, which did not have that property.

ajross 2y ago
Uh... no? The topic is "undersea internet cables", it's right there at the top of the page. It's true this subthread became a digression about telegraphs, and I thought it was important to bring things back to the actual subject being discussed, as it doesn't share the property that made telegraph sabotage a notable idea.
- samatman 2y ago
  Everyone in the thread up to the point where you commented was talking about telegraph cables. I believe you when you indicate that you thought you had changed the subject back to something else, but you gave no indication that this had happened whatsoever. The comment you're replying to: > Because it takes 1 person, in an isolated spot to ruin a whole chunk of a network. Is, in fact, about the telegraph network. Thus your objection to it is bootless, because it isn't true about the telegraph network, which is the topic of that comment. The fact that it's true of other things doesn't really matter, because most wrong statements might be correct if made about some other topic.
  - ajross 2y ago
    Good grief. I can only repeat: the discussion about telegraph sabotage was a senseless digression, unrelated to the subject at hand. And I think pointing that out for the people who might not understand the distinction is important. I'm sorry if you think that's "bootless", but in the real world hijacking discussions for unrelated minutiae is considered bad form. Go post an article about telegraph sabotage. The real internet is very robust.
    - vasco 2y ago
      In the real world it's bad form because audio has 1-2 max "tracks" you can focus on and so people need to focus or lose time as they wait to get back on track. Here is different, if you don't think a subthread is interesting instead of telling people they are talking about the wrong thing, just scroll down. You can skip it entirely.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

Uh... no? The topic is "undersea internet cables", it's right there at the top of the page. It's true this subthread became a digression about telegraphs, and I thought it was important to bring things back to the actual subject being discussed, as it doesn't share the property that made telegraph sabotage a notable idea.

samatman 2y ago
Everyone in the thread up to the point where you commented was talking about telegraph cables. I believe you when you indicate that you thought you had changed the subject back to something else, but you gave no indication that this had happened whatsoever. The comment you're replying to: > Because it takes 1 person, in an isolated spot to ruin a whole chunk of a network. Is, in fact, about the telegraph network. Thus your objection to it is bootless, because it isn't true about the telegraph network, which is the topic of that comment. The fact that it's true of other things doesn't really matter, because most wrong statements might be correct if made about some other topic.
- ajross 2y ago
  Good grief. I can only repeat: the discussion about telegraph sabotage was a senseless digression, unrelated to the subject at hand. And I think pointing that out for the people who might not understand the distinction is important. I'm sorry if you think that's "bootless", but in the real world hijacking discussions for unrelated minutiae is considered bad form. Go post an article about telegraph sabotage. The real internet is very robust.
  - vasco 2y ago
    In the real world it's bad form because audio has 1-2 max "tracks" you can focus on and so people need to focus or lose time as they wait to get back on track. Here is different, if you don't think a subthread is interesting instead of telling people they are talking about the wrong thing, just scroll down. You can skip it entirely.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]