|
|
|
|
|
|
by benchaney
2529 days ago
|
|
|
> And, per my linked article, other experts did. Yes, and other experts responded to those issues and there was an interesting technically interesting back and forth. Meanwhile on hackernews, armchair critics posted condescending and meaningless dismissals. For some reason you are defending them instead of advocating your position reasonably. > I'm sorry, but being unable to answer the question: "How will you prevent the birds you're trying to protect from also eating the poison?" ipso facto makes a plan "terrible" It isn't in any way relevant, but you can not possibly justify the claim that they are unable to answer that question. |
|
|
You know when I said we were talking past one another? This right here is why.
You're attributing a motive to me, which "you can not possibly justify". You aren't in my head. You're reading the position you want to find in my words, which is absolutely not the position I'm taking.
To be clear, then, my entire position is premised on "healthy" skepticism, which I found to be the operative word in the post that spawned this trawl through pedantry. I think suggestions like "throw cats at the problem" are patently ludicrous, and if you browsed that particular thread, you'd see my comments to that effect.
I'm done here. 'dang or 'sctb, please feel free to mark this entire sub-thread as off-topic. I'm sorry for having been party to raising the noise floor.
EDIT: Phrasing.