News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Philosophical Landmines (2013) by jschveibinz on Saturday January 30, 2021 @11:09AM (#25970171)
I understand, but I respectfully disagree. In your response you used words like “about that”, “high probability”, “frequently” and “unproductive,” all of which could be argued on a philosophical basis.

And by the way, if you are going to post things and then downvote legitimate responses—then perhaps you need to rethink things a bit?

Re:Philosophical Landmines (2013) by dang on Saturday January 30, 2021 @01:49PM (#25971756)
Whoa, please don't cross into personal attack, and omit swipes from your comments here.

TeMPOraL didn't downvote you. He couldn't. No one can downvote replies to their own posts (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25969116 was probably downvoted because it broke these guidelines:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re:Philosophical Landmines (2013) by ineedasername on Saturday January 30, 2021 @07:48PM (#25974603)
I downvoted you because your comment didn't add substance by explaining what you meant. You made a statement that didn't seem to apply to article I read, which is fine in itself, but its brevity meant there was no way to evaluate what you meant, yet it seemed unnecessarily combative & overall unproductive to the conversation.