[MarkusQ]

> They don’t just lean into epsilons, the session context tolerance is used for almost every single point classification operation in geometric kernels and many primitives carry their own accumulating error component for downstream math.

The GP wasn't wrong. To "lean in" means to fully commit to, go all in on, (or, equivalently, go all out on).

[vouwfietsman]

I think his point is: rather than "leaning into" it as in, masking through epsilons, he argues that tolerance is fundamental to the problem space, not a way to resolve edge cases.

[MarkusQ]

Right. And my point is that "leaning in" doesn't mean masking, it means committing to. Taking seriously. Exactly the sort of thing he's describing.

I'm wondering if people have heard the expression "leaning in" from people who were insincere/lying, and assumed that that was what the phrase means?

[juped]

I think you should revisit the word "just", its presence in the comment you're trying to discuss, and how it's used.

[MarkusQ]

To me it seems it's used with the intent "They don’t just <do X>, they <do Y>," implying that Y is a proper superset of X. My point is that X is in fact a superset of Y, making the most charitable reading "They don’t just <do X>, they <do X in more words>."

Is there another potential reading of "just" that I'm missing?