91–100 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN has a "second chance queue" for posts that the powers-that-be believe could've/should've gotten more attention but didn't. Happened to one of my posts once, which was confusing as all hell at first but made sense once I learned about it.
Feature in search of a problem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you calling me out for asking why it does a thing that OP claimed it did? (You don't need to answer, I know exactly why - because you agree with OPs viewpoint and disagree with mine)
Haha I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way. Apart from that you can argue about programmable speakers all you like.
Sorry, I have a pet peeve about poor reading comprehension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You apparently don't understand that "hacker" has multiple definitions. Sorry to hear that. The guy who named this site wrote extensively on "hackers", which you're free to read. Try "hackers and painters" first. If you think this is a site all about people who gain illicit access to systems which they shouldn't have, then you must be very confused by the content frequently appearing here.
If you think there is no overlap between those definitions of “hacker,” you do not understand them.
Now, I'm curious why you responded to me, but you didn't bother responding to OP who seemed to think that the only definition of hacker was essentially "someone who illicitly breaks into other people's systems".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could just be "not thoughtful". I understand that you want to present the alternate viewpoint as absurd in order to bolster your own viewpoints, but this isn't reddit and you don't need to operate this way here
No, please don’t misunderstand me. My goal wasn’t to mischaracterize your viewpoint, but to point out what I thought was a bad argument. I do not need a PhD in Accessibility Studies to know that the same tones and messages were played as normal, plus the message from “Elon” or “Bill” Even the hearing aid connectivity was left intact; my dad has one. So no, I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the field. And I don’t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like they still make the normal/expected sounds. So kudos to the pranksters for keeping them safe and available for the people in need of accessibility.
That being said at least in one case “The pedestrian push buttons have been deactivated and crosswalks are currently operating on a timer”.
SV road signs are constantly covered in graffiti. They don’t just take them down until a replacement arrives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, please don’t misunderstand me. My goal wasn’t to mischaracterize your viewpoint, but to point out what I thought was a bad argument. I do not need a PhD in Accessibility Studies to know that the same tones and messages were played as normal, plus the message from “Elon” or “Bill” Even the hearing aid connectivity was left intact; my dad has one. So no, I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the field. And I don’t…
Can you look in the mirror for a second? You accuse me of a bad argument, but then this entire post is you just asserting your viewpoint as true, with basically just a "cmon, obviously!".
The reddit crack is worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way. Apart from that you can argue about programmable speakers all you like.
Who explained why a thing was a certain way, but then the thing was not that actually way? Sorry, I have a pet peeve about poor reading comprehension.
Also, saying "Have you considered that there's a reason?" is not at all the same as "asking why it does a thing". It's a strong statement on its own. If your original comment had stopped after the first sentence then you would have gotten a very different response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who explained why a thing was a certain way, but then the thing was not that actually way? Sorry, I have a pet peeve about poor reading comprehension.
They're annoyed at your "Have you considered that there's a reason?" for strongly implying there's an explanation for the incorrect fact. They dislike that whole type of statement. Their reading comprehension is fine and you're just nitpicking their wording. Also, saying "Have you considered that there's a reason?" is not at all the same as "asking why it does a thing". It's a strong statement on its own. If your ori…
Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension?
> They said they dislike the person that says to explain an incorrect fact.
No, they said - literally - 'I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way'. Your reading is not what they said. I'm sorry but you're batting .000 here.
> You're the one that said to explain an incorrect fact.
A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"?
edit: Dude, you've edited your post at least 4 times in the past 12 minutes, all of your posts being drastically different points, so I'm not sure which one I should respond to. I think I've responded to your 2nd edit, which I've essentially quoted in entirety as I saw it on my screen. Your current post is equally as ridiculous, but it isn't clear to me that I should spend any time on it if you are just going to edit it to be a completely different point again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're annoyed at your "Have you considered that there's a reason?" for strongly implying there's an explanation for the incorrect fact. They dislike that whole type of statement. Their reading comprehension is fine and you're just nitpicking their wording. Also, saying "Have you considered that there's a reason?" is not at all the same as "asking why it does a thing". It's a strong statement on its own. If your ori…
Wow, your edit of your post is completely different from your original message - "You asked why it spams wait over and over. But it doesn't. That's the incorrect claim." Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension? > They said they dislike the person that says to explain an incorrect fact. No, they said - literally - 'I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certa…
Yes I fucked up reading at first.
It's correct now.
Appending without editing: I've had a long day, I don't usually edit nearly as much.
Appending without editing: I should have just deleted it and made a new comment, I guess? I didn't know you were trying to reply, sorry.
Appending without editing:
> A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"?
The problem was not the first sentence where you did that. The problem was the second sentence. Don't motte and bailey this.
Appending without editing:
Also for the record I stand by the intent of the lines you quoted, though the wording is flawed in the first quote and fixed in my final version. The entirely incorrect thing I said at first is gone and you didn't respond to it so at least that worked out.