[kllrnohj]

You can get large gains tuning an allocator for a specific use case, yes, but that's very different from tuning it for thread safety. Particularly since most major allocators use a first-level allocator that's thread-local and is therefore not paying any thread-safety tax in the first place.

> It's rather arrogant to assume that the poster doesn't know what they're doing

Given the question they asked I don't believe it was arrogant at all to assume they don't really know what they were doing. Their response seems to justify the push to start from the basics as well.

[civility]

Nice job - you've succeeded in being just another condescending asshole.

[dang]

It's true that shallow comments are frustrating, but aggressive ones are worse. If you keep breaking the site guidelines like you did repeatedly in this thread, we're going to have to ban you. Can I persuade you, instead, to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended? It sounds like you know a lot, and we want knowledgeable users. It's just that we want not to have a tirefire wreck of a website more—so we have no choice but to put out flamewars.

[civility]

Dan, go fuck yourself. By letting people get away with snarky condescending tones and banning people who call them out on it, you're encouraging shitty behavior. "Don't be snarky" is right up top in the comments section of the guidelines, but it's easier for you to chastise me because I called the snarky guy an asshole. That's just lazy on your part.

Aggressive comments aren't worse, they're just easier for you to recognize.

[dang]

You're right that "Don't be snarky" is high up in the comment guidelines, but even before that comes "Be kind." Being unkind is worse than being snarky. I don't mean morally worse, but worse in the long-term effect it has on the forum. The guidelines aren't moral edicts, they're heuristics designed to prevent the system from burning out. Snark is bad, but aggression is worse: it leads to flamewar and eventually, as people keep upping the ante, to scorched earth. It's in that sense that what you did was worse than what you were reacting to. Snark is like vandalism—it eventually wrecks a neighborhood. But aggression is like arson, or gun battles in the streets.

We care as much as you do about snarky and condescending comments. I personally share your feeling of being even more averse to those than to the cruder abuses. But for a bunch of reasons, they're harder to moderate. Here's one: people's interpretations of what counts as snark or condescension vary widely. There is little community consensus around this, and moderation can never get too far ahead of the community view. We have to choose our battles wisely if we don't want to spark backlashes, protests, and off-topic distractions that render the cure worse than the disease.

I can't moderate based on my personal views. That's the reason why your advice wouldn't work. We couldn't moderate based on your personal views either. It isn't laziness—it's that you can't impose an individual interpretation set on the community as a whole. People assume we do, but that's only because they haven't learned about moderation the hard way. Moderation is extremely different from extrapolating one's likes and dislikes into site rules and then using power to enforce them.

Does that mean doing nothing about snarky and condescending comments? Hardly, and if you read my comment history (not that I recommend it), you'll find plenty of examples of asking people not to do that. But they're ad hoc and I try to be careful not to demand too big a leap from the reader.

The plan is, over time, to raise the bar for comments so that gradually the snark and shallow dismissals stand out more prominently as abusive, the way that "you're an asshole" comments do now. Then it will be possible for moderators to do more about them. But this needs to happen slowly— frog-boilingly slowly. If we push too hard, the community balks and moderation loses power. We can only do what the community will support. We can lead—but only a bit at a time. Even if https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20252539 was trite and unhelpful, I guarantee you that the hivemind is not yet ready to support moderator intervention at that level. It needs to get more refined before that is possible. That's the long-term hope, but it will take years if not decades to get there.

[civility]

I appreciate your reply, but I don't believe the vandalism and arson metaphor fits. There are just people you let get away with crap and ones you don't. His goal was to antagonize me while flying under the radar, and he succeeded. My goal was to antagonize him in retribution, and I failed.

So where are we now? I'll go back to reading the headlines instead of the comments because I'm not clever enough to keep people like that from getting under my skin, and he'll go on to piss off someone else the next chance that comes up.

Anyways, I regret snapping at you. Take care.

[dang]

> There are just people you let get away with crap and ones you don't.

It's really a comment-by-comment thing rather than a people thing. If you're seeing cases where we're failing to moderate a post that cries out for it, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We'd appreciate links, because we can't come close to seeing everything here. Or of course you can flag the comment (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). In egregious cases, emailing [e-mail] is best because then we're guaranteed to see it sooner.

> His goal was to antagonize me while flying under the radar

Really, are you sure? Can you point to the comment that demonstrates this? Because either I missed something obvious or you're reading perhaps a bit too much into what was posted. Intent is notoriously difficult to read accurately in these posts, as I'm sure you know.