[saaaaaam]

I would argue that you imagined something that the other person said - in this context, the other website. This is why your "strive to address... what was said, not what you imagine the other person said" comment sits uneasily for me.

I'm not sure if your highly condescending and somewhat reactive tone is intended or not, perhaps it's satirical, but in case you are unaware, your tone is highly condescending. Saying things like "if you pay attention to the words" and "you just have to make a genuine effort to understand" and your didactic "default to this" comes across rather badly.

[latexr]

Respectfully, I don’t relish the idea of wasting more time failing to impart the difference between criticism and expressing personal disappointment. It is possible to dislike something without thinking that thing or its author are bad. Not everything is about taking a side. We used to be able to understand that.

My tone did succumb to the frustration of having the point be repeatedly strawmanned (you’ll have to turn on show dead to see every instance), which is worryingly becoming more common on HN. I accept and thank you for calling that out. While in general I appreciate HN’s simple interface, it makes it easy to miss when the person we’re talking to on a new reply is not the same as before, so I apologise for any negativity you felt from me.

I may still see your reply to this (no promises) but forgive me if I don’t reply further.