| > I kind of want to see what other hackers think of this 'heuristic of conversational originalism'. It's a threaded comment system, rather than a flat comment system. To me this implies that the search for context should begin with the most tightly bound scope. By default I assume a comment is a direct reply to its parent, as the writer of the comment made a deliberate choice to place it there. While the larger context informs the tone and examples which will be used, it's the background scenery, not the subject. > In a sustained conversation it's unreasonable to expect readers to perform a context-shift every time someone says something Maybe I'm reading this too strongly, but how else can you have a conversation? Every statement is, most immediately, in the context of the directly preceding statement, that's what a dialog is. > especially when the in-context reading (particularly the murder comment) is more natural than the out-of-context reading. Again, maybe I'm completely misreading you here. But what exactly do you mean by the 'in-context' reading in this case? The subject as I read it was:
"Humans will always be underemployed from some perspective ("Oh but she could be doing X"). Penalizing them for not operating in a way that is consistent with your (or anyone's) world view is far more sinister." With a larger context of the validity of 'wasting time' as a criticism, the implication that what constitutes a waste of time is purely subjective, and the background example given being HFT vs. Ad revenue. (The choice of HFT as an example being the result of the overall context of the article) As requested, that's what this hacker thinks. |