"out biology primes us..." but "I didn't see it the first time, and only saw it after another commenter pointed it out."
part 1 addresses the general premiss that if you see sexual imagery in a non-sexual image, then there is <something> about you
part 2 addresses the personalization of the accusation
Re:Mastering Nim, 2nd edition
by PH95VuimJjqBqy on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @12:40PM
(#38547069)
exact same for me, although after seeing it I do have a difficult time believing it was accidental.
But I also don't care, it doesn't bother me at all.
Re:Mastering Nim, 2nd edition
by that_guy_iain on Thursday December 07, 2023 @03:15AM
(#38554087)
> I'll reflect this back to you and your statement. Making such statements says quite a bit about how you see and treat people
What I suspect is you haven't looked at a picture of the actual book cover and therefore haven't realised that it looks rather different in action.
> it's more telling about you than anyone else
I'll reflect this back to you and your statement. Making such statements says quite a bit about how you see and treat people
I'd also note that I did write I didn't see it the first time, and only saw it after another commenter pointed it out. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38544483)