6 ms·

That something has to be applicable to only one "side" is a goal of your own making, not mine.

Dylan16807 2y ago
They didn't say that. And they're right, if we can't tell what your quote is aimed at, then your post is not doing a good job.
- computerthings 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Multiple people calling your post unclear is a request for you to explain. Even if they don't use a question mark.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - skissane 2y ago
        > > random nobodies speculating in public (likely incorrectly), and people are repeating their speculation because they like how it sounds > That made me think of how Arendt described the pre-totalitarian mishmash of opinions and totalitarian "opinions" [0], that's the first quote. Allow me to clarify what I was saying: there is no inherent problem with “random nobodies” speculating about things - I am myself a “random nobody” in this context. The problem is when people start talking about those pseudonymous speculations as if they were coming from genuine life experience with this particular computer system, or closely related computer systems-which is what I interpreted the comment I was replying to as claiming (or at least it could be read as implying it). Furthermore, while both I and the sources for these speculations are “random nobodies”, I’d say I’m a much more informed random nobody, because I’ve read enough COBOL documentation to realise that what they are saying is of dubious plausibility, whereas it appears they haven’t. That’s not to say I’m endorsing Musk’s claims about “150 year old social security recipients”-I don’t know what the actual truth behind them is (and I don’t think anyone else publicly discussing them does either), but I think more likely than not they are an exaggeration, distortion or misinterpretation - so I do think they are probably (at least partially) wrong - but (outside a small cohort of current and former government officials and contractors, who likely are restrained by confidentiality obligations from participating in the public debate) nobody knows exactly how and why they are wrong - but I know enough about COBOL to know that COBOL-centric theories about why Musk is wrong are very likely themselves wrong. And finally, replying to someone’s comment with quotes - without any explanation of why you think the quotes are relevant to the comment you are replying to - isn’t a helpful communication style. Rather than leaving people guessing at what you are trying to say-or leaving them with the onus of asking you to clarify-much better to just explain it explicitly in your initial reply. Plus, I have the suspicion that your reply was triggered by a misunderstanding of my position - that you were reading me as saying “Musk is right”, when what I’ve actually been saying (not explicitly in that particular comment, but I think it becomes clearer if you read my other comments on the topic) is “Musk could well be wrong-indeed more likely than not he is-but not for this reason”
        computerthings 2y ago
        > That made me think of how Arendt described the pre-totalitarian mishmash of opinions and totalitarian "opinions" That is genuinely all. If that is not welcome here, fine, but this "what are you trying to say?" as if there has to be some other layer I just don't get, or this flagging spree against me now. > much better to just explain it explicitly in your initial reply. "this made me think of" is implied to me. I could have put some specific phrase in italics, but other than that, just flag the thing. Any reply I make just gets used against me anyway, so do whatever.
  - dang 2y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - computerthings 2y ago
      Do you consider the original quotes "unsubstantive", too, seeing how it's flagged yet upvoted? Because like it or not, you have a lot of that on this website, most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777
      - dang 2y ago
        I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I did take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777 and can say that yes, that's definitely a flamewar comment that breaks the site guidelines and that we ask users not to post here. I've replied to that commenter elsewhere. Unfortunately your reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113282) also breaks the site guidelines. If you keep doing this, we're going to have to ban you, so it would be good if you'd please stop doing this.

They didn't say that. And they're right, if we can't tell what your quote is aimed at, then your post is not doing a good job.

computerthings 2y ago
[flagged]
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Multiple people calling your post unclear is a request for you to explain. Even if they don't use a question mark.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - skissane 2y ago
      > > random nobodies speculating in public (likely incorrectly), and people are repeating their speculation because they like how it sounds > That made me think of how Arendt described the pre-totalitarian mishmash of opinions and totalitarian "opinions" [0], that's the first quote. Allow me to clarify what I was saying: there is no inherent problem with “random nobodies” speculating about things - I am myself a “random nobody” in this context. The problem is when people start talking about those pseudonymous speculations as if they were coming from genuine life experience with this particular computer system, or closely related computer systems-which is what I interpreted the comment I was replying to as claiming (or at least it could be read as implying it). Furthermore, while both I and the sources for these speculations are “random nobodies”, I’d say I’m a much more informed random nobody, because I’ve read enough COBOL documentation to realise that what they are saying is of dubious plausibility, whereas it appears they haven’t. That’s not to say I’m endorsing Musk’s claims about “150 year old social security recipients”-I don’t know what the actual truth behind them is (and I don’t think anyone else publicly discussing them does either), but I think more likely than not they are an exaggeration, distortion or misinterpretation - so I do think they are probably (at least partially) wrong - but (outside a small cohort of current and former government officials and contractors, who likely are restrained by confidentiality obligations from participating in the public debate) nobody knows exactly how and why they are wrong - but I know enough about COBOL to know that COBOL-centric theories about why Musk is wrong are very likely themselves wrong. And finally, replying to someone’s comment with quotes - without any explanation of why you think the quotes are relevant to the comment you are replying to - isn’t a helpful communication style. Rather than leaving people guessing at what you are trying to say-or leaving them with the onus of asking you to clarify-much better to just explain it explicitly in your initial reply. Plus, I have the suspicion that your reply was triggered by a misunderstanding of my position - that you were reading me as saying “Musk is right”, when what I’ve actually been saying (not explicitly in that particular comment, but I think it becomes clearer if you read my other comments on the topic) is “Musk could well be wrong-indeed more likely than not he is-but not for this reason”
      - computerthings 2y ago
        > That made me think of how Arendt described the pre-totalitarian mishmash of opinions and totalitarian "opinions" That is genuinely all. If that is not welcome here, fine, but this "what are you trying to say?" as if there has to be some other layer I just don't get, or this flagging spree against me now. > much better to just explain it explicitly in your initial reply. "this made me think of" is implied to me. I could have put some specific phrase in italics, but other than that, just flag the thing. Any reply I make just gets used against me anyway, so do whatever.
- dang 2y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - computerthings 2y ago
    Do you consider the original quotes "unsubstantive", too, seeing how it's flagged yet upvoted? Because like it or not, you have a lot of that on this website, most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777
    - dang 2y ago
      I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I did take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112777 and can say that yes, that's definitely a flamewar comment that breaks the site guidelines and that we ask users not to post here. I've replied to that commenter elsewhere. Unfortunately your reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113282) also breaks the site guidelines. If you keep doing this, we're going to have to ban you, so it would be good if you'd please stop doing this.