News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by hinkley on Monday August 17, 2026 @03:34AM (#49327518)
You're working mighty hard to manufacture outrage there.

Coming off more as projecting. Maybe you're being an asshole when you say "You're welcome" but it's a bit how the guy who steals is the first one to accuse others of theft.

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by otterley on Monday August 17, 2026 @03:37AM (#49327551)
We’re talking about basic etiquette here. I don’t have to manufacture it. If the score on my comment (which I know you can’t see but you’ll have to take my word for it) and other comments in this discussion that express similar sentiment are any indication (among them, “arrogant” and “obnoxious”), I’m by no means the only person who feels this way.

Try my experiments yourself if you disagree, and come back and let us all know how they went for you.

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by antonvs on Monday August 17, 2026 @05:27AM (#49328332)
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the common passive-agressive use of "you're welcome" in exactly the kind of context the OP article uses it. But it's a thing, even if you haven't come across it.
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by hinkley on Monday August 17, 2026 @08:06AM (#49329550)
I am well familiar with passive aggressive. This isn’t how you fight it, is the point. Getting worked up is exactly the goal. Go outside. All of you.
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by samsari on Monday August 17, 2026 @08:46AM (#49329964)
Are you as familiar with "condescending" as you are with "passive aggressive"?
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by hinkley on Monday August 17, 2026 @01:25PM (#49334551)
I am not being condescending. I save that for folks who start it. You don’t want to see me being condescending. Well actually you do, as long as it’s not aimed at you and you get popcorn.
Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by llm_nerd on Monday August 17, 2026 @08:48AM (#49329987)
Who is getting worked up? Who is "outraged", or looking to "manufacture" it?

I mean, the only person these descriptions apply to in this discussion is you.

Google's blog title is weird. Every normal human being that speaks English will find it weird. Maybe the author is on the spectrum, or maybe they thought their humour would carry better in a technical blog. Your agreement with this is not at all our concern.

Maybe you should go outside and settle down?

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by otterley on Monday August 17, 2026 @09:08AM (#49330236)
> This isn’t how you fight it, is the point

Social condemnation has always been used to help keep the behavior of a group within certain acceptable bounds. Whether it's as effective in today's world of ever-escalating attention-seeking competition as it once was is questionable, though.

> Getting worked up is exactly the goal.

I don’t know who you think is worked up here, but it’s not me. I was merely expressing what impression the author’s choice of words left on me. And clearly I wasn’t alone in that regard. You are the one who chose to attack me as “projecting.”

...

You are getting a lot of feedback that you are the one who is mistaken here. Have you considered digesting it instead of defensively escalating?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/3c/dd/2f3cddbe0d3b383ee6d3...

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by hinkley on Monday August 17, 2026 @01:23PM (#49334514)
You’re all here to clutch pearls. This has all turned into virtue signalling over a title. There are better things to be doing with your day. It doesn’t matter to you that they have no shame and it will roll off them like water off a ducks back?

Have you ever tried to shame a narcissist, or someone with BPD? It definitely does not work on them. They just try to destroy your life for you. The way to deal with that sort is, don’t deal with them at all. Give them nothing until they get bored and leave. If you count it all up there’s rather a lot of people for whom making it your job to control them is a bad outcome for everyone involved. It’s a generalization that has important exceptions.

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by antonvs on Monday August 17, 2026 @04:18PM (#49337005)
“Virtue signaling” is a term narcissists and psychopaths use when they encounter criticism they don’t like.

I’m commenting because the post title was obnoxious and deserved to be called out. “Virtue signaling” has nothing to do with it. When someone insults me, even as part of a group, I don’t promise to sit idly by.

No, it doesn’t matter to me that you apparently have no shame and will rationalize this criticism. I’m saying it because you and the OP deserve it, and if we don’t push back on this sort of bullshit, it’ll only get worse.

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by otterley on Monday August 17, 2026 @02:24PM (#49335439)
> You’re all here to clutch pearls. This has all turned into virtue signalling over a title.

I disagree with your characterization, but you do you, I guess.

> There are better things to be doing with your day.

Perhaps so. There are probably better things for everyone on HN to be doing instead. Nevertheless, as autonomous people, we can choose our own priorities. I, for one, don't appreciate being told how to spend my time.

> Have you ever tried to shame a narcissist, or someone with BPD? It definitely does not work on them.

To be sure, a punch in the mouth may be more effective.

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by hinkley on Monday August 17, 2026 @02:37PM (#49335653)
> To be sure, a punch in the mouth may be more effective.

HAH! Not all of us are big enough to get away with it, but you're not wrong.

Well, also there's been a lot of feedback on both sides. I wasn't the first one to suggest that the rabble rousing was misplaced here. So, I guess we are both guilty of ignoring feedback.

Re:Protobuf has LSP support. You're welcome by Dylan16807 on Monday August 17, 2026 @03:37PM (#49336463)
> the common passive-agressive use of "you're welcome"

That exists.

> in exactly the kind of context the OP article uses it

I do not agree.