News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Uber’s self-driving car could not detect pedestrians outs... by dragonwriter on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @07:05PM (#21469011)
My point is that your pedantry claiming as wrong a reference to one completely accurate description because another description, which is not exclusive of the one provided, also applies is, itself, wrong, and, further, that the personal insults based on it are, —as well as being unnecessary, infantile, off topic, and counter to the HN guidelines—also unjustified.
[dead]
Re:Uber’s self-driving car could not detect pedestrians outs... by dang on Friday November 08, 2019 @01:10AM (#21480293)
Re:Uber’s self-driving car could not detect pedestrians outs... by dragonwriter on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @07:48PM (#21469327)
> If you being shown to be incorrect is a "personal insult",

The whole point is that the person in question was not incorrect at all, they simply used one of two perfectly accurate descriptions when you preferred the other. Your description of them as having been incorrect was incorrect. (I note, though, that you have since edited the personal insults about he fitness of the poster you purported to correct for their prior job from your post, which would be commendable were it not directly linked to your dishonest pretense that that insult did not exist and that a reference to an insult in your comment must be to the mere act of proposing a correction.)

Also, the person in question was not me, I'm just the one who called you out on the error in your “correction”. So for someone so critical (incorrectly) of others’ failure to pay close attention to detail, you are doing a poor job of demonstrating attention to detail.

Re:Uber’s self-driving car could not detect pedestrians outs... by macintux on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @07:42PM (#21469276)
The insult was in your later, snide reply. “What was yours?”