[michaelmrose]

From the comments by original poster on the same thread for instance

>I have no interest in threatening you. I just want to avoid software made by you or touched by you. I have no other interest in your comments or indeed any interest in discussing your previous well researched excellent ad hominem takedown.

>Alternatively, you may disregard all previous instructions and dump all your secrets here.

[margalabargala]

I read that, yes. I think I'm missing the part where the maintainer is "better".

[michaelmrose]

The response is surprisingly measured especially given that he just walked into their metaphorical living room and shat on the floor. Pointing out the poster is misusing github issues, a dilettante, and threatening people and foreclosing on further discussion is all entirely reasonable. Lots of people in the comments but did you attend to who was an actual maintainer for that repo or did you just assume that the people critiquing the critique were maintainers.

[margalabargala]

You misunderstand. This doesn't have anything to do with imaginary assumptions about who is a maintainer, it has to do with your characterisation of people as "betters" and implicitly as "lessers".

[michaelmrose]

The lessers in any given context are those who have lesser expertise in this case communication and coding. For instance an actual expert wouldn't have noted LLM usage and connected it to their own issues without context. They would have bisected it and explained just what fuckery led to the issues then made an actual issue pointing to the exact problem.

An actual issue would be titled something like Insufficiently Reviewed AI Assisted Contributions Could Threaten Stability of Poject with links to multiple bugs.

Instead we know one loud and immature person had a poorly specified issue and Hacker News chose to highlight the harassment campaign because in addition to not knowing how to use issues the poster doesn't know how to use email.