Hacker News Reader

Comment by socmag | Hacker News Reader

Instead of just downvoting, how about refuting my claim?

I'm seriously curious what is the disagreement. These guys already established atomic clocks are unnecessary. Very interested in which use cases require them.

View on HN

Read and learn: https://research.google.com/archive/spanner.html

Serializability is all about ensuring a single consistent ordering of events. Lots of algorithmic shortcuts you can take if all your nodes' clocks are precisely in sync.

I'm very familiar with the literature since I'm a distributed database developer.

If you investigate high frequency trading you will understand that the quantum phenomena that I'm talking about is not just me high on mushrooms but a real world thing.

The only "time" relevant is the time when the cluster agrees an atomic, isolated transaction is time to commit from its own perspective.

Am I wrong in remembering that the HN guidelines used to say that you should not downvote someone's comment simply because you disagreed with it?

I went looking, and I don't see that in the current guidelines. I could be wrong about it being there before, but I was almost certain that it was at one point.

Seems like it used to say that you should only downvote comments that you think don't contribute anything of value to the conversation.

Just curious, because it seems to me that for quite a while now there have been a lot of comments that appear to get downvoted just because people don't agree with what the person said (and often there are no responses to counter, the person just gets downvoted).

I think you're thinking of somewhere else. The up/down votes are a way of agreeing or disagreeing without cluttering up the comments with a bunch of "me toos" or "nuhuhhs"

I'm certain that I'm not thinking of somewhere else. I'm completely open to the possibility that I just remember it wrong, but I'm sure that it was HN that I was thinking of, and not another site.

You're thinking of Reddit.

Reddit, we did it again.

No, you did not "do it again". I almost never read anything on Reddit. So that was not the source of confusion.

Nope, I know I'm not thinking of Reddit (as I said in reply to another comment, I've spent almost no time on Reddit, and would not have seen their guidelines at all).

Does this seem familiar? https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette

Nope. I've never spend much time on reddit, and I'm certain I've never seen that page before. Perhaps I am thinking of comments other people made on HN in the past (who thought that the policy was as I described).

There's never been such a policy on HN; you remembered it wrong, as have many before you. It's the same phenomenon as attributes pithy quotes to Einstein and makes Canadians think we have Miranda rights: people hang memories on the nearest pre-existing hook in the brain.

Probably the most that I've written about downvotes on HN is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9440694.

me too.

I don't have a full history of the guidelines, but the canonical link on this tends to be [0]. About nine years ago, PG thought downvote to disagree was perfectly reasonable. I don't think there's been any official change since then.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

While it's not in the guidelines, 'pg is on record years ago saying that downvoting for disagreement is okay, given that people upvote for agreement:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

That said, I think many on HN do think that downvotes should be reserved for uncivil or unsubstantive comments as they don't contribute to the conversation. Some will still downvote for disagreement or for other reasons.

I think it's best not to let it bother you or worry about it because there's not much you can do about it, other than contribute as civilly, substantively, charitably, and in good faith.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com