241–245 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure you've actually checked the download numbers and are not just going "well akshually", right?
Excuse you? What I originally said was "I don't understand your comment". They posted a clarification, and the clarification still doesn't make sense. No, I haven't read the download numbers. How is that going "well akshually"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they're is a negative force, such as people being put off by the lack of AI features. While a lack of such a response might not justify the headline used here, I think it is certainly worth noting.
If you know absolutely nothing, though: expect usage of something used by humans to scale with the number of humans.
We don't know absolutely nothing here: there is a new variable in play and this result gives us some evidence of the effect of that.
--------
[0] It _could_ have done, but something else countered it, though this is less likely according to Occam's razor.
[1] As opposed to reducing interest in the tools. The figures² apparently don't look to support an increase in interest though.
[2] Going by what others here are saying. The linked text doesn't state any numbers, nor does the announcement from the LibreOffice project, and I don't have time to go digging further ATM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excuse you? What I originally said was "I don't understand your comment". They posted a clarification, and the clarification still doesn't make sense. No, I haven't read the download numbers. How is that going "well akshually"?
The clarification makes sense, unless you presuppose that download numbers are consistently trending upwards.
The numbers graph is spiky and I can imagine you could argue either way that they are generally trending up or not. But that's irrelevant!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The clarification makes sense, unless you presuppose that download numbers are consistently trending upwards.
No, it doesn't. If the claim is just that download numbers are not consistently trending upwards, they should have just said that. I would have no trouble understanding that. What they actually said is "Libreoffice didn't say the numbers were going up, they claimed a specific record." Well, so what? Nobody said Libreoffice said that! The OP said that, because if it's true , then it's not surprising that the latest st…
So I fail to see this discussion as anything but sophistry until anyone demonstrates that the download numbers are totally ordinary. It's typical HN contrarianism without any value, because it's enough to argue for the possibility of something, even when the data for checking it is easily accessible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't. If the claim is just that download numbers are not consistently trending upwards, they should have just said that. I would have no trouble understanding that. What they actually said is "Libreoffice didn't say the numbers were going up, they claimed a specific record." Well, so what? Nobody said Libreoffice said that! The OP said that, because if it's true , then it's not surprising that the latest st…
This objection is completely meaningless unless the download numbers follow a consistent upwards trend. You are simplifying the new record to a boolean, but most people still find meaning in extraordinary events happening, even if they follow a general trend. So I fail to see this discussion as anything but sophistry until anyone demonstrates that the download numbers are totally ordinary. It's typical HN contrariani…
That's then what tempfile was questioning how it contradicted smokel's claim (because it doesn't, just an imagined claim). Your points, that if the number of weekly downloads isn't actually consistently increasing then this could still be meaningful, are valid - but irrelevant to tempfile who was wasn't arguing that this is meaningless; you should argue that to smokel instead.