5 ms·
[flagged]
by jonathanlydall 2y ago
[flagged]
- kragen 2y ago[flagged]
- jonathanlydall 2y ago[flagged]
- Timwi 2y agoFor what its worth, my reading of the text you're criticizing was not at all characterized by the level of distraction you describe; and this coming from somebody who is otherwise so distracted by typos that I will skip a comment (or blog post) that has more than a couple. Perhaps a level of familiarity with the convention plays a role, as I have chanced upon the Long Now Foundation and some of its writings. Despite, that was a long time ago. There are competing conventions such as writing the year 2000 as 102000 so as to reflect a common estimate of the origin of our species, which I encountered via kurzgesagt. I support the author’s rebuttal that if the slightly unusual year number prevents you from taking in the content and its points, you might just not be a member of the intended audience.
- ninkendo 2y ago> you might just not be a member of the intended audience There’s no relationship between people who would appreciate the history the author was trying to communicate, and people who aren’t distracted by prefixing a pointless zero before the date. Unless you really meant that as a snide comment calling GP an idiot. Either way, maybe the zero prefixing thing is just stupid and not the hill to die on you seem to think it is.
- kragen 2y ago[flagged]
- ninkendo 2y ago[flagged]
- kragen 2y ago[flagged]
- tomhow 2y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43586901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43586901.