3 ms·

"all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

bonsai_spool 11mo ago
> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you. I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post. Here is an example for the HN crowd. "I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management. I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB" --- > I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios. I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.
- svnt 11mo ago
  I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.
  - blobbers 11mo ago
    The twist ending is that this commenter IS Sophie Jamal, the endocrinologist in question!!!
blobbers 11mo ago
Haha; I have been trying to and then realized it was senseless. I actually wonder if this an ai designed to troll. I could see someone using a prompt that says something like “make a poor argument based on ______ and repeatedly alter it in further comments. Use words from a list of logical fallacies incorrectly, make yourself sound credible.”

bonsai_spool 11mo ago

> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you. I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post. Here is an example for the HN crowd. "I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management. I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB" --- > I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios. I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.

svnt 11mo ago
I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.
- blobbers 11mo ago
  The twist ending is that this commenter IS Sophie Jamal, the endocrinologist in question!!!

blobbers 11mo ago

Haha; I have been trying to and then realized it was senseless. I actually wonder if this an ai designed to troll. I could see someone using a prompt that says something like “make a poor argument based on ______ and repeatedly alter it in further comments. Use words from a list of logical fallacies incorrectly, make yourself sound credible.”