[Supermancho]

Did he or did you? Some arbitrary game of how you count lines of code is not interesting enough to make the front page.

Using an arbitrary metric that is not commensurate with reality is inaccurate. The point is that the title is clickbait for what amounts to a singularly exploited bug in a tool, not what was purported. Literally the same misinformation goes on in the political space all the time, where it is lamented. If it's related to quirky coding eventualities, it's lauded.

That's the point.

[Dylan16807]

You can argue against the merits of this game or call this clickbait, and that's okay. But someone that blithely points out that there is in fact code, not even realizing the game exists, is missing the point.

There is a big difference between disagreeing with a point versus not realizing the point is there.

[Supermancho]

The point was made and you chose to derail as if it didn't exist, in bad faith to act smug. Good luck with that.

[Dylan16807]

Which point? Are you talking about the point notinventedhear made? That point was not useful and the initial reply was not derailing and that wasn't me making that reply.

If you're talking about something else, I have no idea what you mean at all.

And nobody here has said anything in bad faith. Why do you think there was bad faith?

[Supermancho]

> This is still one line of code.

> But someone that blithely points out that there is in fact code, not even realizing the game exists, is missing the point.

notinventedhear didn't miss the point.

He disputed the topic (and implication) which is not "the game" but a description that is factually incorrect. You don't want to agree, that's fine. It's not subtle or complicated. To claim anyone misunderstands where this premise comes from, is a bad faith interpretation, which you inexplicably double down on.

[Dylan16807]

The page says right at the very top that this is about tricking the line counter.

notinventedhear is not disputing the actual page when they say "There is still one line of code." Nor do they appear to be objecting to the title, because they're quoting part of the actual page and re-explaining it even though the page already does so.

This seems like pretty strong evidence to me that they missed the point; they missed the part about tricking.

It's not that I don't agree with what they said, it's that what they said was already thoroughly covered in the linked page, right up front and in more detail. If they understood that, then why did they even make a comment like that?