3 ms·

There is a specific record being claimed. They're not just saying the absolute downloads are going up, as the OP suggests.

by robrain 24d ago

ksymph 24d ago
Their point was more that, if every 'weekly download count after a new release' (or whatever record) is consistently being broken on each new release due to generally increasing popularity, then it doesn't make sense to imply causality between the messaging around this particular release and its already-expected record-breaking status.
- Timon3 24d ago
  And that's the case? Weekly download numbers have been consistently trending upwards?
tux3 24d ago
They're saying the weekly numbers grow a little bit every week, so every week is technically record breaking. The absolute number of lifetime downloads can of course only go up (but that's even more vacuous).
- robrain 24d ago
  Their last sentence: “Unix timestamp counter breaks record after writing this comment” makes that vacuous connection, hence my original comment.
tempfile 23d ago
But that is perfectly consistent with the downloads incrementally going up all the time. It doesn't say anything about whether the recent policy changes increased that rate.
- Timon3 23d ago
  I'm sure you've actually checked the download numbers and are not just going "well akshually", right?
  - tempfile 23d ago
    Excuse you? What I originally said was "I don't understand your comment". They posted a clarification, and the clarification still doesn't make sense. No, I haven't read the download numbers. How is that going "well akshually"?
    - Timon3 23d ago
      The clarification makes sense, unless you presuppose that download numbers are consistently trending upwards.
      - tempfile 23d ago
        No, it doesn't. If the claim is just that download numbers are not consistently trending upwards, they should have just said that. I would have no trouble understanding that. What they actually said is "Libreoffice didn't say the numbers were going up, they claimed a specific record." Well, so what? Nobody said Libreoffice said that! The OP said that, because if it's true, then it's not surprising that the latest stat (release or not) is the highest ever. Nobody in the thread so far has said anything that contradicts "the numbers were going up anyway, therefore the record might not be to do with the AI policy". The numbers graph is spiky and I can imagine you could argue either way that they are generally trending up or not. But that's irrelevant!
        Timon3 23d ago
        This objection is completely meaningless unless the download numbers follow a consistent upwards trend. You are simplifying the new record to a boolean, but most people still find meaning in extraordinary events happening, even if they follow a general trend. So I fail to see this discussion as anything but sophistry until anyone demonstrates that the download numbers are totally ordinary. It's typical HN contrarianism without any value, because it's enough to argue for the possibility of something, even when the data for checking it is easily accessible.

There is a specific record being claimed. They're not just saying the absolute downloads are going up, as the OP suggests.

by robrain 24d ago

There is a specific record being claimed. They're not just saying the absolute downloads are going up, as the OP suggests.

ksymph 24d ago

Their point was more that, if every 'weekly download count after a new release' (or whatever record) is consistently being broken on each new release due to generally increasing popularity, then it doesn't make sense to imply causality between the messaging around this particular release and its already-expected record-breaking status.

Timon3 24d ago
And that's the case? Weekly download numbers have been consistently trending upwards?

tux3 24d ago

They're saying the weekly numbers grow a little bit every week, so every week is technically record breaking. The absolute number of lifetime downloads can of course only go up (but that's even more vacuous).

robrain 24d ago
Their last sentence: “Unix timestamp counter breaks record after writing this comment” makes that vacuous connection, hence my original comment.

tempfile 23d ago

But that is perfectly consistent with the downloads incrementally going up all the time. It doesn't say anything about whether the recent policy changes increased that rate.

Timon3 23d ago
I'm sure you've actually checked the download numbers and are not just going "well akshually", right?
- tempfile 23d ago
  Excuse you? What I originally said was "I don't understand your comment". They posted a clarification, and the clarification still doesn't make sense. No, I haven't read the download numbers. How is that going "well akshually"?
  - Timon3 23d ago
    The clarification makes sense, unless you presuppose that download numbers are consistently trending upwards.
    - tempfile 23d ago
      No, it doesn't. If the claim is just that download numbers are not consistently trending upwards, they should have just said that. I would have no trouble understanding that. What they actually said is "Libreoffice didn't say the numbers were going up, they claimed a specific record." Well, so what? Nobody said Libreoffice said that! The OP said that, because if it's true, then it's not surprising that the latest stat (release or not) is the highest ever. Nobody in the thread so far has said anything that contradicts "the numbers were going up anyway, therefore the record might not be to do with the AI policy". The numbers graph is spiky and I can imagine you could argue either way that they are generally trending up or not. But that's irrelevant!
      - Timon3 23d ago
        This objection is completely meaningless unless the download numbers follow a consistent upwards trend. You are simplifying the new record to a boolean, but most people still find meaning in extraordinary events happening, even if they follow a general trend. So I fail to see this discussion as anything but sophistry until anyone demonstrates that the download numbers are totally ordinary. It's typical HN contrarianism without any value, because it's enough to argue for the possibility of something, even when the data for checking it is easily accessible.