His criticism is reasonable. There is a line between valuable criticism and pointless negativity. The latter deserves the “if you don’t like it, go away” response. The former does not. The line is fuzzy, so err on the side of leniency.
Now, if there is a flaw in the criticism, address that, not the mere fact that it is criticism.
It’s like people who jump in an a discussion about electric vehicles then filling the comments with “I won’t buy one until the range increases“. Their criticism is also legitimate.
People should simply realize the product isn’t for them.
That’s also a reasonable response and if I had a conversation about EVs with a large group of friends, I would expect one of them to make that comment. I would not expect the person with that sentiment to simply walk away rather than engage.
But everyone already knows they have limited range. You aren’t adding to the online conversation. You aren’t going to change anything.
Often in long conversations, people chime in without reading the conversation and several people make the same “observation”.
In this conversation, we know there are downsides to cloud-based voice recognition. Telling someone who built it that it’s not for you, doesn’t add any value.
> But everyone already knows they have limited range. You aren’t adding to the online conversation. You aren’t going to change anything.
Realistically everything in this hypothetical conversation will be things that “everyone” knows. Unless you’re discussing confidential info about EVs, everything is by definition public knowledge and probably even common knowledge. Most conversations are about opinions rather than facts.
Is the guy who comments about EVs having all their torque available from a standstill also adding nothing to the conversation? What about the guy who mentions the environmental friendliness? Or the one who mentions the environmental costs of lithium mining? Who is really adding to the conversation here?
> In this conversation, we know there are downsides to cloud-based voice recognition. Telling someone who built it that it’s not for you, doesn’t add any value.
And yet it’s the top comment and the top reply provides info about a platform that doesn’t have the same drawback. I think this is pretty clearly value added.
When you read the comment about short range and the environmental impact of the batteries, they’re often highly upvoted by people that dislike electric vehicles too.
So, my point about someone drowning out someone’s project is proven by the top-rated comment about how it doesn’t work for them.
Now, if there is a flaw in the criticism, address that, not the mere fact that it is criticism.