What exactly is "nasty" about it, and why would anyone take offense at the use of the term "poor version"?

What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.

>What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality?

poor (adjective): of a low or inferior standard or quality.

>Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.

Kinder towards what? Is a multinational like Disney sensitive or is the technology sensitive to the choice of words criticising it? Or will the researchers take offense to their technology, which is objectively inferior, being described as "poor"?

We're stretching this too thin, inventing issues where there are none...

Real people worked on it, and you’re calling their work poor.

First of all, I'm not calling it poor, the grandparent did.

I'm saying it's nothing special to call it poor.

We say 10x harsher things everyday in HN for frameworks, languages, etc. Heck, check any thread about Apple products. Don't real people work on those?

Plus, ever read art criticism, or restaurant criticism, or political critiques even in the most respected newspapers? "Poor" is the least harsh of the terms they use. And those are also real people they level those things at...

Would the Disney version be considered inferior quality to this new research?

The connotative meaning of “poor” isn’t really anything that isn’t the absolute best. Words have meaning beyond the dictionary definition. “Poor” in this case means you think the researchers did a bad job, not that their work was a step on the path to something better. “Earlier”, or even “dated”, would have been a much more charitable depiction. And plenty of people are deriving joy from the application of that technology.

> in this case means you think the researchers did a bad job

It really does not. You’re inventing things to be offended by. It simply means it is low quality version of the same thing, which it very much is.

In retrospect, Ford’s first cars were a poor version of their 2019 ones. Doesn’t in any way diminish the accomplishments of the past.

I’m really not. And I don’t get offended by very much. Maybe you’re not a native speaker? “Poor” as it refers to quality is a negative qualifier. And it’s typically used in a subjective context. That’s the connotative meaning.

Even the definition used here (taken from Google) indicates so, if it weren’t truncated:

poor (adjective) worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.

The list of synonyms is even more telling about it’s real meaning: shoddy, bad, deficient, defective, lamentable, deplorable, awful, etc.

These are not words I’d use to describe the technology, having seen it first-hand. The technology is not worse than usual and I really don’t see how it’s worse than expected or is otherwise undesirable. It’s out there and being enjoyed by people.

Apparently if someone thinks it’s poor?