Your comment was in response to an argument about what the law is. This entire thread is about a court case, which deal with what the law is. You're in no position to accuse others of not responding on-topic.
His comment, despite being placed as a reply to mine, did not address what I was arguing.
I'm particular the "clearly no" does not work. The "clear" thing was not what I was contesting.
And I want to state here that I don't want to relitigate anything in the original discussion. I'm only replying because you seem to misunderstand what this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607486 meant in the first place and I'm willing to explain in other wording what it meant.
Do you want to explain that in any way, or do you just want to be rude while you keep saying incorrect things about my comments? In particular, I never accused anyone of being off-topic.
Early in this conversation I made a comment that shifted the topic slightly, but was also a reply to the argument in the parent comment. tptacek's reply to me was not a reply to the argument in my comment. It was arguing past me. Or I could say it was strawmanning me, but that makes it sound too intentional.
I think that situation is pretty simple. It also seems pretty simple that you misunderstood my comment #41607486.
What's your actual criticism, other than the incorrect idea that I accused tptacek of being off-topic, and other than vague petty snipes?
The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century. So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
> The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century.
It has been partially updated but not enough.
> So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
I never implied otherwise.
A suggestion for change is by definition based on the current version.