4 ms·

It's undeniably dismissive. Yes, the first sentence is a question, but "is it anything more than X?" is a rhetorical flourish meant to imply that the product is

It's undeniably dismissive. Yes, the first sentence is a question, but "is it anything more than X?" is a rhetorical flourish meant to imply that the product is trivially replicated. The next sentence goes on to say that he's not impressed. As pg put it: Maybe you think you're making some sort of important point here. Or maybe you realize your comment is inane and you think it's witty. But (perhaps without realizing it) you and the people upvoting you represent one of the worst forces at work in the world. The people who ridicule new things when they first appear in incomplete form are one of the worst drags on innovation. [1] 1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4356562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4356562

mkal_tsr 12y ago
> It's undeniably dismissive. Looks to me like at least one personal already countered that claim, thus it is no longer undeniably dismissive. I would say your response to his question is even more dismissive of any "dismissal" that may had been interpreted from the OP.
kbenson 12y ago
I don't think it is, and I think the fact the person begins with a question asking if their assessment of the technology is correct is integral to that point. As a real life example, I was leaning towards the original poster's interpretation of the product. The reply it spurred helped me see the product in a different light, and I think it has more merit than I originally did, even if I'm not sure the technologies in use, or even how they are combined, is especially new and noteworthy. As is all to often the case, it's the implementation that matters. In think my initial opinion was dismissive, the original comment was inquisitive (if a bit critical, but I see nothing wrong with some light criticism), the reply it spurred was illuminating, and my resulting opinion was hopeful. I view that as part of HN's success, not something that needs to be overly policed.
- tsm 12y ago
  GP here; you've used much better words to mirror my opinion. This being on Hacker News, my initial thought was that it would be an amazing technical display. Frankly, it isn't, but the discussion here has helped me realize that the reason we care about it is because it's an incredibly useful application of existing tech. That's still great—there's a ton of value outside of technical wizardry—but it just wasn't immediately clear to me after reading the article.
  - tduchemin1 12y ago
    hi tsm, founder of Transcense here. beyond the impact we want to do, we always at some point built on top of others/existing technologies. Innovation definition is tricky. Is it in the technical implementation (an Instagram is not that complicated after all) or in the productization/distribution to market? We're humbled to have been posted on HN, not from us. But stay updated, what's coming next will be even more interesting.

mkal_tsr 12y ago

> It's undeniably dismissive. Looks to me like at least one personal already countered that claim, thus it is no longer undeniably dismissive. I would say your response to his question is even more dismissive of any "dismissal" that may had been interpreted from the OP.

kbenson 12y ago

I don't think it is, and I think the fact the person begins with a question asking if their assessment of the technology is correct is integral to that point. As a real life example, I was leaning towards the original poster's interpretation of the product. The reply it spurred helped me see the product in a different light, and I think it has more merit than I originally did, even if I'm not sure the technologies in use, or even how they are combined, is especially new and noteworthy. As is all to often the case, it's the implementation that matters. In think my initial opinion was dismissive, the original comment was inquisitive (if a bit critical, but I see nothing wrong with some light criticism), the reply it spurred was illuminating, and my resulting opinion was hopeful. I view that as part of HN's success, not something that needs to be overly policed.

tsm 12y ago
GP here; you've used much better words to mirror my opinion. This being on Hacker News, my initial thought was that it would be an amazing technical display. Frankly, it isn't, but the discussion here has helped me realize that the reason we care about it is because it's an incredibly useful application of existing tech. That's still great—there's a ton of value outside of technical wizardry—but it just wasn't immediately clear to me after reading the article.
- tduchemin1 12y ago
  hi tsm, founder of Transcense here. beyond the impact we want to do, we always at some point built on top of others/existing technologies. Innovation definition is tricky. Is it in the technical implementation (an Instagram is not that complicated after all) or in the productization/distribution to market? We're humbled to have been posted on HN, not from us. But stay updated, what's coming next will be even more interesting.