Comment by pwlm
Comment by pwlm 17 hours ago
I'm a bit amazed you consistently get downvoted while you seem to speak the truth. So much gray in your comments.
Comment by pwlm 17 hours ago
I'm a bit amazed you consistently get downvoted while you seem to speak the truth. So much gray in your comments.
I don't understand what "you seem to speak the truth" means if it isn't an endorsement?
It's an observation.
On the continuum of approval, where at one end there is endorsement and at the other disapproval, it's somewhere in-between. Even I who made the observation don't know exactly where.
It could be an incorrect observation. Some of what they said seems true, some false. I don't know enough about security specifically to say. I know a lot about other things to know he said some things that are true.
It's astonishment at perhaps some kind of law of the universe that things that seem one way may be a different way.
It's an exclamation at the poetic irony of someone expressing there's gray area in some things gets downvoted and their comments are in gray colour.
It's a way to introduce myself, to say hi Mr Monero user.
I meant no disrespect.
Perhaps my reply here is astonishment at how interpretation of words may depend on imagination. As if words alone aren't enough.
I post my view that is against the HN hive mind and don't always feel like rebutting the same hive mind talking points again and again. I like to post to prove there is an alternative view out there
I'm also guilty of what they accuse you of. Sometimes my internet comments are not made for the purpose of sparking discussion, but more of a "vent" where I know my take is not popular but I feel the need to throw it out there anyway. The comment is more for "me" than anyone else. And, yeah.. that makes it a bad comment lol.
I also just love playing devil's advocate, and I'm adverse to hivemindy-feeling opinions (even when I share them). Maybe this all describes you, too.
I don't have a problem with people doing that as long as they don't pretend that every other commenter holds the same contrary opinion and that the downvotes indicate they're too sensitive to discuss such things, or other similar rationalizations. If you want to leave some drive-by snark without rationalizing it as being about other people, it's not my favorite kind of comment but I'm not going to object to it either.
The downvoting functionality here and in other forums can mean many things. It isn't a precise thing. If it is precise I'm not finding a clear definition. It can mean I disagree, this is boring, this is false, this made me sad, I don't like reading this, I don't like this user, I'm tired, etc.
One plausible interpretation of a downvote without a comment is drive-by snark without rationalizing.
I don't know your motivations but I know the "HN hive mind" isn't the problem. When you do engage with people who disagree with you, it usually becomes evident to me that there isn't much substance behind your views and that you struggle to disagree amicably. I also see lots of people on HN with a similar perspective to yours who don't have the same problems or engage in the same patterns of behavior.
The facts are that HN has a diverse set of perspectives with many conservative/libertarian commenters who would align with you, but that your comments are frequently shallow flamebait. Though I have seen a couple good points you've made, as well. Do with that information what you will.
I disagree entirely, I don’t even post very frequently so it’s surprising I have someone tracking my posts. The shorter a comment the better it is, if the same opinion that takes an essay can be distilled into a sentence
I consistently see this commenter making a single comment, of questionable relevance, expressing a strong opinion which isn't particularly thoughtful or interesting or true. Then they ignore the pushback and move on to the next thread, where they post another tangential hot take. I'm not at all surprised at the result. Those comments attract a lot of downvote because they aren't very good.
This thread is a microcosm of that. They went on a tangent from a tangent to express how little they think of their colleagues working in security. It wasn't out of curiosity, it didn't raise interesting questions or provoke interesting debate. They didn't defend or substantiate their opinion so that they and we could learn something from it. It was just a drive-by flamebait to stir the pot and express derision. It should be downvoted; it's a bad comment.
Perhaps that pattern is difficult to see when their hot takes align with your own takes.