[altmanaltman]

Because it's also bullshit. "People who read" prefer static sites and not prefer any kind of interactivity is just fetishizing intelligence. Readers don't give a fuck if your site is coded in react or static, most of them dont even know web technology statistically. Projection at its peak

[advael]

Yea definitely, anyone with different preferences from you is just virtue signaling and/or trying to flex on you. Seems super reasonable to me

[altmanaltman]

Anyone who thinks their preferences translate to their viewers is not being honest with themselves. Developers care if your site is static or not, general visitors and web users do not. There is a reason why static sites are not the norm. You're trying to shoehorn your opinion and generalize it when in reality that's not the true. Thanks for mockery!

[advael]

So we've gone from "anyone who expresses this preference is a snob" to "actually what matters is the preferences of some imaginary audience, who I can also speak for"

Fascinating

[altmanaltman]

What's fascinating is your lack of interest in discussing the subject. Have a good day.

[advael]

In a way, we're doing the same maneuver to avoid discussing the subject, deflecting to base insults involving psychoanalysis of the speaker based on their stated position rather than object-level engagement with the position per se. I agree that it's not a move that seems to invite meaningful discussion. Seems worth considering if that's a priority you have

[cyanydeez]

yall, the line is referencing codegen & docsgen & slopgen; people are putting shit into the ether that neither them nor anyone else is going to read but will just be imbibed by some other agent for some random purpose no one strictly knows.

[advael]

Aye, and the comment above mine was engaging with the line in a way that begged for mockery nonetheless