So, that was a bummer • Hacker News Board

Re: So, that was a bummer

#91

Post by pvg » Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 11:02 PM UTC

sabat wrote: post #88

pvg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in 1999, OLTP was still new, and, hence the bug. No, OLTP was not at all new in 1999. OLTP probably means something other than what you think it means.

Online Transaction Processing. I meant specifically on the web, where life is more chaotic than in traditional environments. I suppose I could have written "web OLTP". By "new", I mean less than 10 years old.

I think the correct reply is not weaseling but 'Sorry, my entire post was completely wrong'. It happens.

Re: So, that was a bummer

#92

Post by roc » Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 11:17 PM UTC

dotBen wrote: post #64

roc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree on the technical-level bit, the tone in your sample floats between cavalier and condescending. That's worse than technical overkill IMO.

It would be interesting to know which bits you felt that was? Also keep in mind I tried to edit their original post, as kinda suggested. I'm not sure I'd have written any the post quite in the way that they did - but I tried to work with what I had.

Pretty much every one of the attempts at editorial comedy. People are only reading a post like that if they've been inconvenienced. Comedy is hard to pitch at an angry crowd, so unless you're really good at it, it's probably best not to try.

Re: So, that was a bummer

#93

Post by dhimes » Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 1:53 PM UTC

allwein wrote: post #83

dhimes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HA?

High Availability

Thanks