[dahart]

This comment is less helpful than the one you replied to.

@Simpliplant has a good point, people expect digital paint tools to save, but also made a blanket unqualified statement about creating anything without saving.

@kgwxd replied that some people don't want to save, the blanket statement doesn't apply to everyone. And that's absolutely true. This is a valid, though somewhat tangential, point of view about performance art.

There is a long history of artists using art tools that don't have save or undo. Traditional arts are still founded on this concept, the art world still largely values techniques that involve the risk of screwing it up, and are hard to copy. That's changing over time, digital arts are growing up, but the majority opinion in the art world is still that tools with undo and tools that can replicate without loss are for unserious artists.

Music is the same way, it's a performance art, and digital sequencing and digital performance have often been considered inferior. Robert Moog, one of the most famous creators of analog & digital synthesizers, even wanted to make his synth a performance instrument, and didn't like the idea of using a sequencer. Sound patches couldn't be saved either, and many famous musicians had enormous careers using Moogs.

[cmurdock]

Still, it seems incredibly unlikely that someone needing a pixel art editor would not want the ability to save their work.

[dahart]

It is indeed incredibly unlikely that someone needing a pixel art editor wouldn't want save, I agree with you completely, and I bet @kgwxd does too. But that doesn't invalidate what @kgwxd said. The question "why would you create/edit anything if you can't save it?" was taken literally. @Simpliplant didn't qualify people using pixel art editors, the question said why would you do anything if you couldn't save. As it turns out, people do that all the time. Just not with pixel art editors.

[mejari]

Part of having a productive conversation is using context clues and social norms to help your understanding of what someone means when they say something. Derailing the conversation by taking a comment literally when everyone understands the intent behind the comment is not helpful.

[derefr]

But one of the interesting parts of the paradigm of hierarchically-threaded online discussion, is that only one subthread/reply to a given thread has to be a "productive conversation" (i.e. to continue the thread in the "obvious" way); the other subthreads can be tangents, and tangents do not "derail" in the same way they do in a flat-linear-threaded forum.

[mejari]

I would disagree, because they're still visible and still structurally part of the same conversation, meaning people reading the conversation will read those tangents, or at the very least be distracted by them.

[derefr]

And this is why subthreads in all hierarchical discussion systems are sorted by vote-rank: the subthread that most effectively serves as the continuation of the "canonical" conversation will (almost) always appear first. The only time that doesn't happen is when that subthread doesn't exist—as has happened here. More often than not, when this is seen in a "played out" archived discussion thread, this doesn't suggest that people are "getting distracted by" the tangent, but rather just suggests that nobody is all that interested in continuing the original conversation.

(Unless the tangent leads toward a mind-killing subject like politics. I'm 100% behind you on applying careful consideration before making a tangent from a technical topic to an emotionally-charged one; people see that kind of subthread and never even make it to the rest of the subthreads in the same conversation.)

[dahart]

Another part of having a productive conversation is learning not to make blanket statements, and knowing that most of what you say will be taken literally, and being generous and charitable in your interpretation of others.

For me, the best part of having interesting conversations on HN is reading all the alternative points of view by smart people. Not much "productive" happens, from my point of view, by criticizing someone's show HN project, not much "productive" happens when you make blanket statements about what all people want. And not much "productive" happens by only agreeing with others.

So there might be another hidden motive behind what @kgwxd said. The comment he replied to literally insults the Poxi project, and perhaps @kgwxd was merely defending a Show HN project that's in a very early stage.

In my view, you may be defending the wrong person here. I want to see more show HN projects, and I want people to feel comfortable sharing their projects without fear of getting ripped to shreds, called a joke, and questioned why anyone would ever want to do such a thing. Let's be supportive.

[mejari]

>Another part of having a productive conversation is learning not to make blanket statements, and knowing that most of what you say will be taken literally, and being generous and charitable in your interpretation of others.

So the point was to teach the commenter a lesson by responding unhelpfully?

>In my view, you may be defending the wrong person here.

So, because I was pointing out someone not responding constructively I am by necessity "defending" all points the other person makes? I think that is faulty reasoning.

[kruhft]

Screenshot?