Please consider what it would feel like to be the sole developer working on this project and then to hear this response from someone in person who you excitedly share the idea with. This is not a nice way to respond to someone in person, and it isn't a nice way to respond online.
Consider a rephrase: "This is awesome. I am really looking forward to the world when holographic displays make this possible without AR".
It’s not even relevant to this project because what are they expecting them to do? Make bespoke hardware for it? It’s a link to a GitHub page
It’s like if someone posted a new Tesla and someone replied with “Meh, should have been a Jetpack”. It’s just completely irrelevant if one were to take as criticism/critique. It’s pure dismissal
Let people express themselves without policing it.
Attitudes like yours create echo chambers of sycophants. I personally hate an environment where the only feedback allowed is positive-to-neutral. Negative things, like dismissal that you seem to hate so much for some reason, are feedback too.
Welcome to the thunderdome.
Be as brutally critical as needed but criticism should be something of value.
“Meh” is the equivalent to “neat”. It adds nothing, but unlike neat, it takes away pride.
Also if we’re taking the meta discussion, then you’re doing the same thing you’re saying not to do. People are just giving feedback , but unlike the original comment it’s constructive feedback.
And I didn’t merely say “Meh”, I followed up with some more text and added a new dimension to the discussion.
We definitely want good critical comments here, so in that sense you're correct—but we don't want shallow internet putdowns. Those grow like weeds, choking out interesting conversation and eventually degrading the entire ecosystem.
Your phrase "express their true feelings" is interesting in this context. Shallow internet putdowns aren't true feelings. Often they're a kind of side-expression of someone's bad mood, frustration with life, or whatever—feelings which are actually about something entirely different than (e.g.) AR or holographics or whatever the topic at hand is. Those feelings get displaced into internet swipes because the latter are cheap, risk-free, and bring a slight temporary relief. But they're not "true feelings". If they were, they'd be much more interesting reading.
The GP comment actually included a great second paragraph saying something about what they'd really like to see, and that was interesting because it was rooted in genuine curiosity and enthusiasm. But there was no need to put down someone else's work for not being that.
But I also take issue with this because it sort of compels people to be wordy and force them to use awful gentrified business-bullshit speak where everything has to be couched as positive. There is value in being blunt and direct, and there is value in an economy of words. Just because someone may not be feeling bothered enough to couch their language in pleasantries, or they are incapable of formulating the words in a satisfactory manner, shouldn't mean that they also shouldn't speak at all.
I get that some sorts of negativity "sprout up like weeds" but if we truly want an arena of thoughtful, critical discussion then perhaps we should give such comments more benefit of the doubt.
No one is calling every critical response dismissive nor compelling anyone to use gentrified business speak, false pleasantry, or any of the other things you're worried about.
Edit: one thing that you and the GP appear to have in common is a pre-existing understanding of "AR as an inadequate stopgap on the way to holography". Ok, that's interesting! but the context that pre-exists inside your (or anyone's) head doesn't communicate itself to others. It needs to be explained explicitly. That can be done without putting down the work of someone else who happens to be working on (say) AR.
If you express the point only as a putdown, without the surrounding information that would make it meaningful, then you're going to feel like you made a substantive comment (because for you it's resting on a substantive foundation that you're taking for granted) but it's going to land with readers (who don't have that internal context) as a shallow dismissal.
By "you" I don't mean you personally, but all of us—we all take our own internal state for granted. For HN to function well, though, commenters (all of us) need to work on not doing that, but rather explaining enough relevant background to make our messages interesting instead of empty or mean. The GP's second paragraph did a great job of that—just not the first bit.
“Meh” is exactly how I feel. Indifferent. Unmoved. Unexcited. I left quickly and spent an hour reading about the technology behind the Voxon display. True volumetric images floating before your very eyes.
It's ok to feel indifferent, and you may even express that in person if someone is talking directly to you, but adding "meh" in a message you're choosing to write when no one asked you seems not nice to me.
I'm not even insisting people don't do it -- I'm recommending one reflects more deeply before one speaks; it might seem hard at first, but with practice it will likely filter out unpleasant-to-others gut reactions you may used to have.
Your comment would have been just fine without that first bit. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36713413.
I think it’d be cool if there was some kind of future console that was a glass cube cable of rendering images inside and you used a controller to control the game inside it. There was once an arcade cabinet that was something like this, so the concept isn’t entirely infeasible. With our advanced understand of optics now maybe we can do something better.