News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B... by detaro on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @11:20AM (#18176630)
The last line of your comment is wholly unecessary (and explicitly not allowed on HN)
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B... by holtalanm on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @12:23PM (#18177282)
so we can't call someone out who apparently didn't even watch the linked content, while still posting a comment that criticizes the content?

I'm curious about where in the rules it says we shouldn't call someone out on their BS.

Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B... by stagger87 on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @12:27PM (#18177316)
From the guidelines

"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B... by holtalanm on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @01:00PM (#18177658)
I don't want to split hairs here, but the linked content is not an article. I understand the spirit of it, but it technically does not apply here.
Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B... by asr on Thursday October 11, 2018 @10:16AM (#18193705)
Upvoted because you are correct that I didn't watch the video (and I usually hate commenters who don't look at the linked content so I get you). But I can't just start watching videos at work... and I posted my comment under a link to the related article, so I think it was fair to comment after reading the article but not watching the video.

I am interested to see your original comment if you want to repost (including whatever caused it to be flagged if you like, now that this thread is old I doubt anyone will care/notice).

Re:Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K B... by holtalanm on Thursday October 11, 2018 @01:51PM (#18195592)
I resubmitted my comment, without the 'did you even watch the video' bit.