Hacker Read

DataGata · 2021-01-11 21:45:36+00:00

This was a useful comment, assuming it is true, and even though it is a "debate on definitions" quibble.

ekianjo | karma 34827 | avg karma 2.44 · | 2019-10-19 03:22:07+00:00

read the article linked above, it debates the conclusion stated in the quotes.

AnimalMuppet | karma 25021 | avg karma 1.24 · | 2020-10-08 19:48:47

That would be a more useful comment if you pointed out the flaws in the definitions that vl is using.

cevian | karma 151 | avg karma 2.16 · | 2021-04-21 15:34:41

That may indeed have been more accurate. But this is a HN comment thread after all, we can't capture all subtleties of a very complex debate. :)

ilikehurdles | karma 4121 | avg karma 3.08 · | 2019-01-08 21:31:20+00:00

This appears to be right. It’s a valid disclaimer to note in such a discussion.

Minor49er | karma 2745 | avg karma 1.76 · | 2021-11-02 10:44:11

Indeed it is, though this wasn't what Ajedi32 was arguing

myroon5 | karma 2275 | avg karma 3.82 · | 2019-05-06 20:15:46+00:00

Interesting point of reference, but doesn't prove or disprove the parent comment

BaseballPhysics | karma 3883 | avg karma 4.41 · | 2023-07-15 13:38:41

No argument here, I just didn't understand the comment, I still don't see a clarification from the OP so I remain confused.

tomrod | karma 14581 | avg karma 2.4 · | 2023-02-25 16:54:23

Correct, though that isn't concomitant to the point under discussion.

rcthompson | karma 7252 | avg karma 4.02 · | 2018-01-17 20:06:34+00:00

Ok, fair enough. I was worried that there was some precise definition I had missed, but if that's not the case, I agree there's no point in debating it.

cwyers | karma 12109 | avg karma 4.27 · | 2016-07-21 16:54:42

Um, that's a semantics discussion, I guess, but one with a clearly right and wrong answer.

ohbtvz | karma 263 | avg karma 3.17 · | 2022-11-28 12:20:54

Well, don't start your comment by nitpicking terminology if you don't want to debate terminology. You can't just drop an argument and then evade contradiction like that.

lisper | karma 54803 | avg karma 4.63 · | 2015-05-15 16:59:13

Yes, I know that was his point. My claim is that he was wrong. The distinction does carry extra information. See my other comments in this thread for specific examples.

jamienicol | karma 345 | avg karma 2.02 · | 2020-11-19 21:52:14+00:00

I wasn't debating anything with that comment, so quite obviously you are incorrect

lapcat | karma 12618 | avg karma 3.09 · | 2022-09-06 11:44:09

Ah, you're right, thanks. I kind of skipped over the quoted part, because I had just read the comment that it was replying to.

Though I'm still confused why mmartinson's reply didn't more directly address the previous comment, if it was meant as a refutation.

reply

paulbaumgart | karma 1944 | avg karma 3.36 · | 2014-04-01 20:05:18

Yeah, that seems to be the underlying mismatch in assumptions that started this debate in the first place. Glad we've figured that out :)

grzm | karma 13860 | avg karma 2.67 · | 2016-10-23 04:43:23+00:00

Thanks for clarifying the jargon. That makes sense.

Yeah, your points were useful, and close to ones I was thinking as well. I was just a little confused by the "you guys are conflating" as I wasn't making any claims, but that's minor, and I should have probably just let it go. Pedantry will get me nowhere!

reply

ithilglin909 | karma 354 | avg karma 3.31 · | 2017-08-30 20:26:17+00:00

Correct -- in so far as it's relevant to this discussion, that supports my point. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

ssmoot | karma 1414 | avg karma 2.21 · | 2014-03-26 20:32:17+00:00

I wasn't attacking your comment. Just curious about the citation since it doesn't intuitively sit right with me I guess.

jamesrcole | karma 2386 | avg karma 1.72 · | 2016-10-10 20:14:02+00:00

Yes, but I was responding to a claim that equated to "go with the most broadly held view".