| HN Mirror

  > Just so you know, the tone of your comment is extremely off-putting.

Didn't mean too, but if we're speaking about tone then it's worth noting you're being overly defensive. When you were trying to seek clarification you're approaching it in a combative way. As if from the stance that you're right and I'm wrong. I'll admit my patience quickly thins when talking on the internet as I just don't want to argue.

Also, you're well known here (why I'm responding now) and I think that also makes it important that you help set the culture here. To act in good faith like the guidelines illustrate. I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith (there's a lot of middle ground) but you should take just a few more seconds to consider an alternative interpretation (e.g. if your instinct was to interpret my ask for stronger good faith as an accusation of bad faith then you interpreted as the weakest version rather then the strongest)

I have a point here. It is that nuance and small details matter.

  > I don't have the slightest idea why you're rudely telling me "don't make assumptions"

I'm sure I could have said it better, by my tone was neutral. I'm not a LLM, and I'm not going to preference everything with "brilliant" or "great question", I'm just going to respond. *I'm not calling you dumb*, I'm just pointing out your error.

The problem with your understanding is that you are making erroneous assumptions. This needs to be pointed out to get you unstuck.

In science it's all about assumptions. People frequently throw around the term "from first principles" but you don't really hear that from scientists. First principles are hard to find. You derive them. Your first principles are your axioms. Your assumptions. They always exist, explicitly or implicitly. The problem is you probably didn't recognize you were making assumptions. That's fine though, because it's common. It's hard to avoid.

  > If you don't have helpful answers

You're right. But the thing is I was being helpful. Maybe not in the way you wanted, maybe not optionally, but I'm human.

  > You don't need to ... add a bunch of rude sentences while you do it.

I didn't.

Theres no name calling.

There's no attack.

There's not even an implication that you're dumb.

I did assume you don't have a PhD in chemistry or biology, but I'm pretty confident given your question (was I wrong?). I also said I don't have that qualification (but I do have lots of experimental science training) and that there were things I don't know either. So if you interpreted me as calling you dumb for not having that background then you need to recognize I would have been saying that about myself too! And that you didn't need this comment to infer that.

  > Better to just not reply at all.

Maybe. But that could apply to your own comment. You wrote yours to try to resolve things, right? That's why I left this comment too. But it's up to you how you interpret it.