Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CyberDildonics 35 days ago
You did not answer the question they asked.

They did ask it because I quoted it and replied. That's how these forums work. People write text and other people reply to it.

The way you argued implies you weren't doing that on purpose, and thought you were answering their actual question.

No, that's not true, I think you made all that up.
1 comments
Dylan16807 35 days ago
> They did ask it because I quoted it and replied. That's how these forums work. People write text and other people reply to it.

No, you quoted half a sentence. That wasn't the whole question. You didn't answer the actual question.

The fact that you're still insisting you answered the question makes it clear why you argued with me when I was just clarifying things. You didn't answer something different on purpose, you're still stubbornly acting like you answered the right thing.

You did not answer their actual question. Period. I'm leaving now.

link
CyberDildonics 34 days ago
You did not answer their actual question.

They asked two questions and I answered one. You hallucinated timings to imaginary functions you couldn't name.

Period. I'm leaving now.

You inserted yourself and had a meltdown. I don't know why this was so upsetting but you couldn't actually give a single technical detail, it was just "I just know" and "ask them what function I'm talking about".

link
Dylan16807 34 days ago
They were asking an abstract question, it wasn't about specific functions...

And you were just as stubborn/'meltdown' when repeatedly insisting it was about latency. They never mentioned latency.

link
CyberDildonics 34 days ago
They were asking an abstract question

No it wasn't (I think you meant rhetorical). They might just have not expected a reply.

And you were just as stubborn/'meltdown'

I didn't reply to you.

when repeatedly insisting it was about latency. They never mentioned latency.

I mentioned it once you mentioned overhead, because that's what is actually important between processes.

link
Dylan16807 34 days ago
> No it wasn't (I think you meant rhetorical). They might just have not expected a reply.

I don't mean rhetorical. I mean abstract in that it wasn't about specific locks, it was about types of lock. That's why I didn't try to name any particular functions.

> I didn't reply to you.

In your future replies to me.

If you're not talking about later replies... are you implying you were calling my first comment a meltdown? Weird.

> I mentioned it once you mentioned overhead, because that's what is actually important between processes.

The main worry expressed in the original post was about the throughput of using an IPC lock in places that don't need an IPC lock. That's the overhead I was talking about.

link
CyberDildonics 33 days ago
it was about types of lock.

That's what I answered.

are you implying you were calling my first comment a meltdown? Weird.

Trying to make things up that never happened?

link