News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ideas Having Sex. Parent comment

Re:Ideas Having Sex by Semiapies on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @04:35PM (#1512643)
You were whining about a title. Worse, you were whining about an obvious metaphor being "misleading", which only makes sense unless you expect HN readers to believe concepts can literally, physically copulate.

There is nothing polite or fact-based about that. You were just making a complaint that was neither relevant nor useful.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ideas Having Sex by mkramlich on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @05:00PM (#1512730)
I did not interpret the title as "[Two] Ideas Having Sex" I interpreted it as "Ideas [Had While] Having Sex." But there was no sex in the article. Therefore, I concluded that the title included sex merely for the titilation factor and to boost readership. Thus, as I originally said, it looked misleading to me. And my comment was relevant and intended to be useful.

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with concise, specific criticism about a submitted article if the intent is to help improve the quality of HN as a resource. YMMV.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ideas Having Sex by Semiapies on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @05:11PM (#1512770)
Please.

Your misreading the title is no grounds for whining about link-baiting, and offering it as an excuse indicates you did not bother to actually read the article in any detail.

YMMV, but I don't see anything useful about "tl;dr: nobody has sex in article"-style remarks, no matter how you frame them. I want to see fewer of such, and I will continue to try to discourage them, but I will not further respond to you in this thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]