Are you sure that a text describing one's thoughts when facing something has the same requirements as a mail to a mailing list? And do you always think using quotations in your mind? Like "Oh I come across this interesting place; it's rather popular [quotation1] [qotation2]; my friend suggested me to visit it [a link to the friend's spoken advise]; etc."?

It's not presented as a thought. This is an article criticizing Microsoft, and criticizes their antispam measures saying they are bad due to an anecdotal false positive without considering that the overall effectiveness may be better than older approaches.

No you obviously didn't read it. It writes exactly "OK, they have a stupid AI that is worse than good old filters. OK, they made it react immediately, as an undoubted authority. But that’s not a big problem, right? They provide a way to appeal! Let me do that."

If you say that it's not a depiction of what someone thinks and does facing something, you just need to improve reading skills.

And basically that wasn't something important in the article; I made it rather clear. Their following catch22 was the most likable thing IMO; that was what I explicitly emphasized.

I wonder why do I write all that, though. If someone just wants to find something irrelevant, and build their criticism on that, there's no way to prevent it.

It was an unnecessary comment to include in the article in my opinion. It doesn't affect the overall story, is potentially libelous, and trivializes the complexity of fighting abuse at scale.

I agree it's irrelevant. It makes 0 sense to me to include unless it's backed in truth.

Irrelevant is "lack of references when one describes some reactions", not "this is what I thought, when I faced that; and I described my thoughts and feelings in a post of mine in my own blog dedicated to my thoughts and feelings".

Fair. I could have raised skepticism of the claim without including the reference to references. But I wanted to make my comment longer, and the bit about references was mentioned the sentence before the sentence before the claim.

I also now realize that you are likely the author of the article that was posted, so I will wish you luck in resolving your account issues.

Except he's right. If you haven't noticed how crappy "AI" search is in Outlook and Teams then you probably don't use them. Even when it sorta works, it literally ignores search terms you put in the field, it gives you the search results first for what it thinks you want, then after that it gives you the actual results which are at least somehow using your search terms.

At this point they'd be better off throwing my entire inbox in a RAG workflow written by some junior halfway across the world. It's that bad. I find stuff quicker by remembering when I got an email and then scanning it myself with my own eyeballs and my finger on the scroll wheel.

Outlook used to be amazing. It used to be the hub to my work knowledge base and my memory. Now it's just the tool that does my emails mostly very well.