[dpark]

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.

[melling]

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.

[dpark]

> 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.

[melling]

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.

[dpark]

So you’re just going to pretend that the top comment doesn’t have a useful and relevant reply?

[melling]

Snips? It has been submitted 5 times this week. E.g.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16537734

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16544893

[dpark]

Yes. I don’t know if Snips is any good but it seems extremely relevant and the “I won’t use remote automation” comment led clearly to the posting of Snips in this conversation.

Putting aside Snips for a moment, my point with my last comment was to note that you took the “upvotes aren’t a meaningful indicator” tangent and ignored the rest of the reply. You ignored the fact that the criticism led to a meaningful reply and did in fact contribute to the conversation. You also ignored my questions about what constitutes actual contributions to a conversation. Is it just positivity? Because most of the positive stuff people post is still not new and it seems unreasonable to me to claim that criticism is at heart not contributing to the conversation while fanboyism is.