Another response: your argument style reminds me a little bit of a straw man:

  > A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument
  > and an informal fallacy based on giving the 
  > impression of refuting an opponent's argument, 
  > while actually refuting an argument that was not
  > presented by that opponent. - Wikipedia

... with the twist: instead of engaging with anything I said, you mischaracterize it and large parts of the preceding discussion. Then you use that as a way to dismiss what I wrote as "off topic".

I'm going to have some fun looking up what others call that kind of rhetoric.

Ah, this appears to be the core of it: according to your interpretation of the thread, my comments are off-topic.

After re-reading the thread, it is clear that your 'understanding' (as written above) of the thread is inaccurate.

I'll annotate the first five comments in the thread, with your 'understandings' and my responses:

  Original post:
  > allenleein: "Early user here. Obsidian is literally the best
  > app in 2020 so far IMO. -Blazingly fast -Clean UI -Free -Sync
  > [...] -Great community"

  Your 'understanding':
  > 1. The company should buy you this.

Your understanding is inaccurate: allenleein does not say a company should buy Obsidian.

  Follow-up comment:
  > usr1106: "[it is] Not really [free]. The license says you are
  > not allowed to take notes about work you get compensated for.
  > So free only for 100% hobby projects.
  >
  > Working in a start-up I don't have big 100% hobby projects
  > that would require a lot of note keeping. YMMV

  Your 'understanding':
  > 2. They may not [buy you this]

Your understanding is inaccurate: usr1106 says nothing about what an organization should or should not buy. A better summary would be: usr1106 disagrees about what 'free' means, explains the license, and does have hobby projects that would qualify as free.

  > codezero: I'd be more concerned if you had a hard time getting
  > reimbursed for this kind of software at your job.

  Your 'understanding':
  > 3. If they didn't, that would be a concern.

Fair enough.

  Follow-up comment:
  > libria: "What's the concern for? A lot of great jobs still 
  > have penny-pinching managers. I've worked somewhere notoriously
  > Frugal that was good and paid well but had no problem denying
  > requests like this.""

  Your 'understanding':
  > Why?

Your understanding is incomplete. In addition to asking why, libria also offers a framing and makes a value judgment about what constitutes a good job.

Some of your other comments in this thread refer to this framing and value judgment. That's fine, but other comments are in no way obligated to agree or buy-in to that framing.

  Follow-up comment:
  > xpe: I'll respond with a connected set of questions...
  > 
  > Is it worth the time to deny a (well intentioned) $150 request
  > made by a software developer who costs a company (for example)
  > $150K total (salary, benefits, and fixed costs)? $150 is 0.1%
  > of $150K.
  >
  > What are the benefits and costs? Some questions to ask include:
  >
  > [... time spent? likely effects? consistency in other areas? ...]
  >
  > I think my overarching point is, again, illustrated by questions: 
  > What does a company truly value? Are they mindful and realistic
  > about their costs and benefits? [... P.S. ... snip]
 
  Your 'understanding':
  5. Argument that the company should buy extra software.

Your understanding is inaccurate. I asked many questions that don't give one particular universal answer about purchasing; the questions, I hope, suggest an approach to finding an answer that works for you.

A charitable reading (see the HN Guidelines) of my comment would see that I was responding to this part of libria's comment: "What's the concern for?" To put it very simply, I would be concerned by a company that was not mindful and realistic about their costs and benefits. Why? It is simple: I value working for mindful and realistic companies.

In summary, your understanding is inaccurate.