>
I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk.And why would we know how you "interpreted it" if it wasn't spelt out? And what would be the limits to accept other places as being "like Norilsk"?
Cold cities only (e.g. not a cold village)? Cold places in Russia? Cold industrial cities only? Cities that get dark in the artic for months? Would similarly cold places elsewhere count? Does it have to get to -40 celcius or a city that gets to -20 will do?
The "most reasonable interpretation of a comment" of what we were already discussing in this thread is that we weren't talking about Norilsk lookalikes, but about whether people could live in such adverse settlements before or are "only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity".
That was literally the claim that started the subthread.
>Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment.
It's not that difficult to not have heard of the Inuit, or to have heard of them but believe they lived if other conditions, or whatever.
The "outrage" is rude, and probably violates the same HN recommendation it invokes (if not others too). The parent replied very calmly to a question.
HN is global and has people of all places and all ages, including people who know little or nothing about Alaska and the Inuit. And people don't know all kind of basic things if they're not in their interests. Heck, many people can't place basic countries on the map, much less know about the Inuit. Just because someone is a programmer, and reads HN, is no guarantee.