Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by rbjorklin on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:19PM
(#13624562)
Curious to hear your reasons for calling Red Hat a dark horse. (Which I presume is some kind of slur/holds a derogatory meaning)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by dang on Sunday February 12, 2017 @12:52AM
(#13627002)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13624340 and marked it off-topic.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by bradyd on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:21PM
(#13624575)
It's actually not derogatory:
"A dark horse is a little-known person or thing that emerges to prominence, especially in a competition of some sort, or a contestant that seems unlikely to succeed."
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by mindcrime on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:25PM
(#13624602)
"Dark horse" isn't a slur or pejorative in general. It's roughly equivalent to "long shot" or "underdog" or something like that.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by halestock on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:22PM
(#13624581)
Per wikipedia: "A dark horse is a little-known person or thing that emerges to prominence, especially in a competition of some sort, or a contestant that seems unlikely to succeed."
In this case I would imagine it's because Red Hat is pretty tiny compared to IBM/Google/Oracle and could not put up a comparable amount of money for the purchase.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by ben_jones on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:23PM
(#13624588)
Dark Horse is the horse in the race nobody thinks has a chance of winning, but comes out near the front in the final seconds (surprising everybody). You could've just Googled it.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by dizzystar on Saturday February 11, 2017 @04:51PM
(#13625042)
my goodness, this is probably not a native English speaker, or perhaps never heard the expression before... why be so harsh?
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by wtbob on Saturday February 11, 2017 @05:12PM
(#13625149)
Not understanding is fine: assuming that something one doesn't understand must be a slur is not fine.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by raarts on Saturday February 11, 2017 @05:53PM
(#13625335)
He didn't assume but presume. And I think that's quite understandable for a non native speaker, given the connotation of the word 'dark'.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by selectiveshift on Saturday February 11, 2017 @06:40PM
(#13625566)
Actually in this case presuming is not understandable, there is no evidence or reasonable grounds to support his statement.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by freehunter on Saturday February 11, 2017 @10:24PM
(#13626486)
We are on the internet, and online dictionaries exist. There is no reason to presume or assume the meaning of a word when it can merely be looked up.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by champlinRyan on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:22PM
(#13624576)
Dark horse in this context means other companies unlikely to actually buy it, or win the bidding war. Its not any sort of slur that I'm aware of.
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by IgneousPneuma on Saturday February 11, 2017 @03:24PM
(#13624595)
dark horse just means not a main favored candidate
[dead]
Re:Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in...
by dang on Sunday February 12, 2017 @12:54AM
(#13627012)
Personal attacks are not allowed on HN.
We've warned you about rudeness on HN in the past. Since you don't seem to have done it in a while, we won't ban you, but please remember that it's not ok and don't post like this again.