Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive,
not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet
tropes.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously;
don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Please don't comment about the voting on comments.
It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Not-so-subtly mocking the top-level for not replying "yet", when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow, was not a move that made you look smart or nice.
>when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow
Wow. Such wrong claims.
I had already replied to you in a sibling comment, refuting your points, but will give one more proof (not that I really need to):
_acco, the top level commenter relevant to this discussion, commented at some time, say x.
layer8 commented, replying to _acco, 7 hours ago (as can be seen on the page at the time of my writing this comment, i.e. right now).
I then replied to layer8, 6 hours ago.
_acco replied back to layer8 5 hours ago.
All this is visible right now on the page; and if people check it a few hours later, the relative time deltas will remain the same, obviously. (But not if they check after 24 hours, in which case all comments will show as one day ago.)
So there was a 1 hour gap between layer8's comment and mine, and a 2 hour gap between layer8's comment and _acco's reply.
If you think 2 hours is the same as "almost immediately", as you said above, I have nothing more to say to you, except that our perceptions of time are highly different.
I meant immediately after your reply. At the time I posted, your and acco_'s replies to layer8 both showed as "3 hours" ago. Now they both show as "13 hours ago". Really, I'm being generous in assuming they didn't reply before you.
Ed: ah, since the time I wrote this comment, your respective comments are now at 14 and 13 hours. Congrats on your <1hr lead.
I was careful to check the spelling before mentioning their name, unlike you, even when I referred to them earlier. The fact that you cannot even get the position of an underscore in a name, correct, seems to indicate that you are sloppy. which leads me to my next point.
2. pompous:
You said:
>Really, I'm being generous in assuming they didn't reply before you.
This is the pompous bit. Generous? Laughable.
I neither need not want your generosity. If anything, I prefer objectivity, and that people give others the benefit of the doubt, instead of assuming bad intentions by them: I had actually checked for a second comment by _acco (in reply to layer8) just before I wrote my comment to layer8, the one that got all of you in a tizzy. But you not only got the times wrong (see your edit, and point 3 below), but also assumed bad faith on my part.
3. fake.
You first said above that both those replies to layer8 showed as 13 hours ago, then edited your comment to say 14 and 13 hours. It shows that you don't use your brains. The feature of software showing time deltas in the form of "hours ago" or "days ago", versus an exact time stamp, is pretty old by now. It dates back to Web 2.0 or earlier, maybe it was started by some Web 2 startups or by Google.
If you think you are so clever as to criticize me without proof, or say that you are generous in your assumptions about me, you should have been equally clever or generous about the time delta point above, and so realized that I could have replied to layer8 before _acco, which was indeed the case. Obviously I cannot prove it, but the fact that I got _acco's name correct, while you did not, lends credence to my statement. It shows that I took care while writing my comment.
4. So you are fake because you don't bother to think before bad-mouthing others, and even more fake because you did not apply (to yourself) your own made-up "rule" in this other comment of yours, where you criticized my comment as being neither smart nor nice, so not of value:
I should not have had to write such a long comment to refute your silly and false allegations, and I will not always do that, but decided to do it this time, to make the point.
And, wow: you managed to pack 3 blunders (being inaccurate, pompous and fake) into a comment of just a few lines. That's neither smart not nice. Instead, it's toxic.
Actually, your inaccurateness (inaccuracy? GIYF) is even worse than I said above. My comment of a few levels above, literally uses the name _acco at least four times - I checked just now. And your comment was in reply to that. So even after reading that person's name four times in my comment, you still got its spelling wrong. Congrats. (Yeah, I can snark too, like you did to me upthread.)
You seem to have gotten so worked up over my misplaced underscore that you yourself forgot how those ubiquitous rounded timestamps work. When I first wrote my comments, they were indeed the same, 3 and later 13 hours. After I wrote my later comment, in the few minutes between times I looked at it, the timestamp on yours just happened to cross the threshold where it rounded up to 14 instead of down to 13. (And if I was "sloppy", do you really think I would have looked again and corrected my comment?) Presumably if I looked at them a bit later they would have both said 14 hours. Hence <1 hour lead.
Anyway, yeah, I worry less about being nice to people who've already shown themselves to be clowns, in a sub thread that's flagged to death. You got me there. FWIW I was originally hoping to enlighten you a bit as to why you were being downvoted, as a small help to you.
These are the four simple lines that I wrote above:
>Solid questions and comments, layer8.
>I notice that the person you replied to has not replied to you yet.
>It may be that they will, of course.
>But your points are good.
(Italics mine, and they were not in my original comment.)
You, above:
>when they replied almost immediately after with a video of the relevant workflow,
I did check the time intervals between the top level comment and layer8's comment, before my first reply. It is over an hour now, so I cannot see the exact times in minutes any more, but IIRC, there was a fairly long gap (in minutes). And I also think I noticed that the top level person did reply to someone else, but not to layer8, by the time I wrote my comment.
So I don't see anything wrong in what I said. I even said that they may reply later.
You consider that to be:
>"Not-so-subtly mocking"?
Jeez. I think you are wrong.
Then I have nothing further to say to you, except this:
>was not a move that made you look smart or nice.
Trying to look smart or nice is not the goal in online discussions. At least, I don't think so. You appear to think that. The goal (to me) is to say what you think, otherwise, why write at all?
I could just get an LLM to write all my comments, and not care about its hallucinations.
I don't try to be smart or nice, nor the reverse. I just put my considered thoughts out there, just like anyone else. Obviously I can be right or wrong, just like anyone else can be. And some points can be subjective, so cannot be said to be definitely either right or wrong.
If a comment is not at least one of smart or nice, it's a waste of space and attention. That may not be your purpose, but don't act shocked when people respond with negativity.
Jeepers creepers! :)