[lapcat]

Judging from the comments here, I think the article would be improved by discussing actual examples of the "just fork it" debate, because commenters seem to be reading different interpretations and different situations into this expression, and I'm not sure that's how the article author was interpreting it.

[boltzmann-brain]

that would turn it into a witch hunt drama post. it's good that this sort of thing wasn't included.

[lapcat]

> it's good that this sort of thing wasn't included.

Is it good that the article has inspired mostly "the author is wrong" comments, more so than even the usual for HN?

[grayhatter]

If the author fundamentally misunderstands the social and technical implications around the topic. Then yes, it's good that all the comments are correcting the misunderstandings of the post.

The blog post makes a lot of arguments, that sound like they might be good. Only until you try to apply them to reality, when they fail. So yes, it's a good thing that examples that would encourage the debate to shift from critiques of the faulty arguments, to heated exchanges over internet drama requiring popcorn.

[lapcat]

> If the author fundamentally misunderstands the social and technical implications around the topic.

You present this as a hypothetical, but your next paragraph appears to take it as a fact.

I do not make such an assumption, which is why I think clarification would be useful rather than just a distraction.

[boltzmann-brain]

a tiny cohort's opinion does not change the truthfulness of a statement

[lapcat]

The point of an essay is not just to make true statements. It's also to convince readers of those statements. Thus, the way the arguments are presented by the writer, and the way that readers interpret the arguments, is crucial.

[boltzmann-brain]

The readers on this website are hopefully less lazy than that

[lapcat]

How is it laziness to not be able to magically read a writer's mind?