3 ms·

You: [0] Nobody's talking about an obligation here. Also you: [1] If you think you can do better than journald's existing format, propose a new one with

You: [0] Nobody's talking about an obligation here. Also you: [1] If you think you can do better than journald's existing format, propose a new one with tests to prove it. The fact that you're personally powerless to enforce an obligation doesn't change the fact that you're talking about creating an obligation. > I'm not entirely sure this is a bug so much as an inefficiency report. Performance bugs absolutely are bugs... especially when they're in a long-running corporation-backed project that presents itself as the project atop which all Linux systems should be built. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49292944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49292944> [1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49291746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49291746>

otterley 1mo ago
Well, I didn't intend to suggest an obligation, more of a best practice or challenge. Please put more faith in my intentions over whatever interpretation of my words you want to make. Per our Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- simoncion 1mo ago
  > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation... Assume good faith. That's what I did. So, right back at you.
  - otterley 1mo ago
    > That's what I did Please explain, because it's not coming across that way. It's coming across as needlessly picky and combative, especially after I told you what I meant (or, at least, didn't mean) and you continued to argue with me.
    - simoncion 1mo ago
      > Please explain... I'm neither required nor strongly obligated to do so, nor do I see significant personal benefit to doing so. So, I will not. However, these days it's quick and easy to command an LLM-based system to generate most any text. Before one demands an explanation from a human, perhaps one should machine-generate a plausible-sounding explanation and present that along with one's demand for a human-synthesized one?
      - otterley 1mo ago
        facepalm Way to double down on the “needlessly picky and combative” angle, dude.
        simoncion 1mo ago
        > Way to double down on the “needlessly picky and combative” angle, dude. Sit and consider the points of similarity between my refusal-shaped reply and the entire conversation we had prior to it and you might find enlightenment, in the style of those classic Zen tales. Perhaps an LLM-based tool might be able to assist you in this, or maybe it will be distracting and misleading. GLHF and all that.
        otterley 1mo ago
        > you might find enlightenment, in the style of those classic Zen tales Doctor, heal thyself.

otterley 1mo ago

Well, I didn't intend to suggest an obligation, more of a best practice or challenge. Please put more faith in my intentions over whatever interpretation of my words you want to make. Per our Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

simoncion 1mo ago
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation... Assume good faith. That's what I did. So, right back at you.
- otterley 1mo ago
  > That's what I did Please explain, because it's not coming across that way. It's coming across as needlessly picky and combative, especially after I told you what I meant (or, at least, didn't mean) and you continued to argue with me.
  - simoncion 1mo ago
    > Please explain... I'm neither required nor strongly obligated to do so, nor do I see significant personal benefit to doing so. So, I will not. However, these days it's quick and easy to command an LLM-based system to generate most any text. Before one demands an explanation from a human, perhaps one should machine-generate a plausible-sounding explanation and present that along with one's demand for a human-synthesized one?
    - otterley 1mo ago
      facepalm Way to double down on the “needlessly picky and combative” angle, dude.
      - simoncion 1mo ago
        > Way to double down on the “needlessly picky and combative” angle, dude. Sit and consider the points of similarity between my refusal-shaped reply and the entire conversation we had prior to it and you might find enlightenment, in the style of those classic Zen tales. Perhaps an LLM-based tool might be able to assist you in this, or maybe it will be distracting and misleading. GLHF and all that.
        otterley 1mo ago
        > you might find enlightenment, in the style of those classic Zen tales Doctor, heal thyself.