ECMAScript 2016 Approved • Hacker News Board

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#81

Post by LionessLover » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:37 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #76

LionessLover wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pg wrote the site What does ownership have to do with it? That does not make him more right than any other human being. Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.

> That does not make him more right than any other human being. No, just the only relevant person to say what is welcome and allowed in HIS social bookmarking forum and what's not. > Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient. "House rules" are not meant to be perfect or agreeable to all -- they are just meant to be whatever those running and owing the house decide.

> pg wrote the site

What does ownership have to do with it, you fucking moron?

That does not make him more right than any other human being. Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#82

Post by LionessLover » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:37 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #24

rkwz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Please don't downvote parent if you disagree with parent's opinion, downvote only if it doesn't contribute to the discussion) @ZenPsycho: A standard library doesn't always have to mean file io or sockets etc. It could be better String/Array/Object manipulation apis, better utility functions (kinda like what underscore/loadsh provide) etc These are universal helpers that are very much needed whether you're writing co…

> Please don't downvote parent if you disagree with parent's opinion, downvote only if it doesn't contribute to the discussion You are wrong. It's absolutely fine to downvote on disagreement. See the following comment from pg himself: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Which is wrong. As is the use of "absolutely" - to show that you have the universe-opinion. What hubris. And it does not matter that some guy "himself" posted some opinion either. Right were you link to there are different opinions from other people that show more thought was put into them. The "pg" comment actually is the only one for your argument, all others are against!

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#83

Post by coldtea » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 1:10 PM UTC

LionessLover wrote: post #81

coldtea wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That does not make him more right than any other human being. No, just the only relevant person to say what is welcome and allowed in HIS social bookmarking forum and what's not. > Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient. "House rules" are not meant to be perfect or agreeable to all -- they are just meant to be whatever those running and owing the house decide.

> pg wrote the site What does ownership have to do with it, you fucking moron? That does not make him more right than any other human being. Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.

>What does ownership have to do with it, you fucking moron?

I'd say "you fucking moron" besides rude, is grounds for killing your account.

As to the question, rules on any property, including a website, are usually imposed by the owner.

That's what "ownership" has to do with it.

There are moderators, and comment and submission rules in places. Maybe you conflated HN with some kind of self-governing collective?

>That does not make him more right than any other human being. Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.

You wrote that again and I already answered. Nobody cares about PG being omniscient. He can impose ANY arbitrary will (right or wrong), because it's his site. He can even close it if he gets bored with it. Whether you or I find any particular rule "right" is inconsequential, as we're guests here, not even customers.