tomhow

31 ms·

691.
by tomhow 6mo ago
You can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. I understand it's a heated topic in which everyone was posting escalatory rhetoric, but it's everyone's responsibility to avoid pouring fu
692.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't sermonize like you have in this thread. It's not cool to heap blame on one person for vast, complex global societal problems, and it's certainly not what HN is for. This site exists for curious conversation about
693.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Your comment was fine. Sorry that others felt the need to be so hostile. As (I hope) you know, that's not what we want to see on HN.
694.
by tomhow 6mo ago
This style of commenting is completely unacceptable on HN. You can't just blithely speculate about fellow community members being “evil”, or indeed anyone else; people can do wrong without being evil, and the first rule of the In Comme
695.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't sneer. My comment was about as mild an ask as we ever make. We won't be adjusting anything, and indeed we'd happily turn the rate limiter off if you just respect the guidelines. This is only a place where people
696.
by tomhow 6mo ago
You've been asked before to make your points without swipes. Please make the effort to observe the guidelines. The very reason this is a place people want to discuss things is that we have the guidelines and others make the effort to o
697.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. It just makes things worse.
698.
by tomhow 6mo ago
> Regardless, it's acceptable here to mock climate deniers, capitalists (CEOs, Billionaires), SUV or truck drivers, religious fundamentalists, various flavors of conservatives, fans of "AI slop" (music or art) No, it’s not
699.
by tomhow 6mo ago
> As for mocking cyclist fashion, that's just a case of falling on the wrong side of the fence. It's completely acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups and not others. In any given conversation, snark is allowe
700.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Can you please stop with this style of commenting? This is not what HN is for – ideological battle, cross-examination, sneering/snark. The thing HN is for is curious conversation, and you'll be much more at home here if you can ke
701.
by tomhow 6mo ago
The guidelines apply no matter the topic; if it weren't that way, there'd be no point having them. We're here for curious conversation. Curmudgeonliness, fulmination and generic tangents are specifically off-limits here, and
702.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Previously... It's OK to abandon your side-project - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39500386 - Feb 2024 (79 comments)
703.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Bot/AI generated comments are specifically against the guidelines (and also implicitly, given the fact that bots aren't curious).
704.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Great, thanks for the reply, looking forward to seeing better from you in future.
705.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't post generic ideological sermons on HN. Sure, any money anyone ever spends or invests could arguably be put to better use. It’s a jerk move to bring it up in a tangential context like this. We have no idea what kind of cha
706.
by tomhow 6mo ago
The “sealion” link and the abusive parts of their earlier comment are unacceptable and I've replied to their comment to make that known. However, these lines in your comment are also clear breaches: > Back up your fucking claim. &gt
707.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't do this on HN. It's against the guidelines to post “internet tropes”, and the purpose of HN is for curious conversation, whereas a link to this kind of URL is low-effort snark. Also, your comment upthread breaks sever
708.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47774789
709.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47774789
710.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Regarding the post you made that was killed: it's a new kind of filter we're experimenting with to deal with the deluge of LLM-generated material that's being posted. That's a recent phenomenon that we're having to
711.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Here you go! https://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html
712.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
713.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47892074 .
714.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47892074 .
715.
by tomhow 6mo ago
I was repeating myself because the disrespectful tone of the replies was continuing, particularly in the last 3-4 lines of that comment. Regarding your post: it was killed by a spam filter. Sorry about that; we've been deluged with spa
716.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47882645 .
717.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Comments moved thither. Thanks!
718.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Our bias is towards the HN guidelines, no matter who or what the topic or “side” is. We often don't know and it's never the point. This site is for curious conversation, not low-substance, ideologically-charged venting. We have to
719.
by tomhow 6mo ago
Can we quit with the defiant strutting? :) Once again, we're here for curious conversation, not... this. We don't “remove” anything (the only exception being when a user asks us to do so for privacy reasons). Personally abusive co
720.
by tomhow 6mo ago
I'm a moderator here. It's my job to uphold the guidelines. Personal abuse of anybody is against the guidelines, not because of what we think of any of those individuals, but because of what kind of site HN is meant to be and the

More ›