3 ms·
Did you intend to parrot fennecfoxen see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132301 Or are you both parroting s
by fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Did you intend to parrot fennecfoxen see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132301
Or are you both parroting someone else?
Or am I witnessing the Infinite Monkey Theorem in action? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
EDIT: They're parroting the GP by jahewson https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132006
- unethical_ban 13y agoOr maybe two people came to the same logical conclusion about someone's post.
- nhaehnle 13y agoIt still does not justify the redundant comments. Keep an eye on that signal-to-noise ratio.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoThat would be remarkable. At least three, in the same thread, and they didn't make more than a trivial change to the text. I was kind of hoping that the original source of the comment would be revealed.