Comment by refulgentis 6 months ago
> Is your comment AI generated?
Are you asking this earnestly, or, is it meant to communicate something else? If so, what? :)
Genuinely, the most interesting part of the comment to me, in that it is does not have 0 meaning, and rings of some form of frustration, yet the rest of your comment stays focused on technical knowledge, and AFAIK you are not the author (who I'd expect would be at least temporarily angry at my contribution)
There's a false equivalence there, between being not-even-wrong and "you have a bunch of UNIX commands followed by a Windows batch file execution."
Note we both agree on that, you seem to assume I claimed something else, like, cd doesn't exist on windows.
Let's say I instead said "this doesn't work on Windows"
I spent probably...8 hours? on Windows this week doing dev, and I'm about 70% sure all of those commands will work on Windows, with dev mode switched on, with WSL on, prereqs installed...
Let's steelman this to the max: any possible prerequisite that could block it, doesn't mean its actually blocked. Dev mode on, WSL, prerequisites wrestled with and installed, can download source and edit then compile, but can only patch build errors, not add new functionality.
Are you 100% sure those commands will work?
(separately, you misunderstand the quote re: glass houses. It would apply if I had used AI to write not-even-wrong claims and then submitted to HN. This misunderstanding leads to a conclusion that it is impermissible to comment on the correctness of anything if you may be incorrect, which we can both recognize leads to absurdities that would lead to 0 communication ever.)
>There's a false equivalence there, between being not-even-wrong and "you have a bunch of UNIX commands followed by a Windows batch file execution."
>Note we both agree on that, you seem to assume I claimed something else, like, cd doesn't exist on windows.
No, you made a specific claim of "Your setup instructions use UNIX commands up until they require running a Windows batch file", when those "UNIX commands" were "pip" and "python". That statement is incorrect because those commands are readily available on windows.
Your remark about "you seem to assume I claimed something else, like, cd doesn't exist on windows" is absurd at best and verges on bad faith that I'm not even going to engage with it.
>I spent probably...8 hours? on Windows this week doing dev, and I'm about 70% sure all of those commands will work on Windows, with dev mode switched on, with WSL on, prereqs installed...
Which commands are those? The only non-native windows commands I see are git, pip, and python, the latter of which are both included in python. You're making it sound like you need to jump through a bunch of hoops to get those commands working, when really all you have to do is run the installers for git and python.
>Are you 100% sure those commands will work?
Again, my claim isn't that the project works 100%, or even that it's not AI generated, it's that your critique makes little sense either.
>(separately, you misunderstand the quote re: glass houses. It would apply if I had used AI to write not-even-wrong claims and then submitted to HN. This misunderstanding leads to a conclusion that it is impermissible to comment on the correctness of anything if you may be incorrect, which we can both recognize leads to absurdities that would lead to 0 communication ever.)
No, the reason why I accused you of AI generated comments and made the remark about glass houses is that claiming "pip" and "python" are "UNIX commands" is so absurdly wrong that it's on the level of the OP. I agree that you don't have to be 100% correct to accuse people of posting dumb stuff, but you shouldn't be posting dumb stuff either.
> Your remark about "you seem to assume I claimed something else, like, cd doesn't exist on windows" is absurd at best and verges on bad faith that I'm not even going to engage with it.
You seem very upset, at least, I'm not used to people being this aggressive on HN, and I've been here for 15 years. I apologize for my contribution to that, if not my sole responsibility for it.
I remain fascinated by your process, I never have heard bad faith invoked when someone points at their actual words.
Generally, it is rare someone invokes "bad faith" when someone else's thoughts don't match their expectations.
I just...can't lie to you. I can't claim I thought it wouldn't work on Windows. I thought the opposite! That the sequence had 0% chance of working on not-Windows, and a 70% chance of working on Windows.
>> Are you 100% sure those commands will work? > Again, my claim isn't that the project works 100%, or even that it's not AI generated,
Oh! I'm referring to the commands, not the project :) The project can output "APRIL FOOLS!", as far as I care for this exercise.
> it's that your critique makes little sense either.
Oh, interesting - happy to hear more beyond that I must have meant pip/Python aren't available on Windows. If that's your sole issue, well, more power to you :) I do want to avoid lying to you just to avoid an aggressive conversation, you may not be even meaning to be aggressive. With the principle of "don't lie", I can't say I had something else in my head that matches your understanding so far, I presume something like "They are UNIX commands follows by Windows commands" [and thus this won't work on Windows]
> claiming "pip" and "python" are "UNIX commands"
Do you think I thought pip/Python wasn't on Windows? Sorry, no - in fact that's what I was using on Windows this week! (well, porting Python code to Dart) I just was 70% sure the commands as written would not work on Windows, and I suppose there's an implication I'm 100% sure they wouldn't work on not-Windows given the .bat file. Beyond that, nada.
>> separately, you misunderstand the quote re: glass houses
> No, I agree that you don't have to be 100% correct to accuse people of posting dumb stuff, but you shouldn't be posting dumb stuff either.
Intriguing, as always: "Did you write this with AI?" followed by a kind inquiry into the meaning of that, followed by "people in glass shouldn't throw stones" meant "you said something wrong when you said something else is wrong, but its cool, that's fine" - "shouldn't" seems to bely that interpretation, but I'm sure I have it wrong.
P.s. all the best, my friend. :)
>Are you asking this earnestly, or, is it meant to communicate something else? If so, what? :)
If you're going to accuse some else of technical inconsistencies, maybe you should make sure your critiques are free of technical inconsistencies as well. You know, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and all that.