What happened to the HN rule of "interpret everything with the most positive interpretation possible", when this is the top voted comment ?
It seems pretty obvious that the author doesn't intend to coerce anyone into doing anything.
It seems pretty obvious that the author doesn't intend to coerce anyone into doing anything.
The Law of the Topmost Comment says nothing about the relatedness to the OP's article[1]. I would suggest you research the topic further before making any more ill-informed comments on it.
If your argument holds, I would expect my agreeable comment of mine to be downvoted or replaced by a comment possibly critical of your viewpoint.
Although in general, you can't expect replies to other comments and comments on posts to follow the same patterns.
One such use of this is when someone posts an article they have some control over, knowing how the title biases or primes a reader can be very informative if they need to make a change because of an unintended effect, given the chance of communities entirely disconnected from hacker news viewing and possibly discussing the article.
But he also points out it'd be an easy opportunity to up-sell some people on a consulting session if they want features he isn't as interested in developing :)
What makes you think this comment is doing anything except providing positive feedback?
>It seems pretty obvious that the author doesn't intend to coerce anyone into doing anything.
Subtext is weird and dangerous. Using more accurate phrasing costs nothing and potentially averts problems.
It doesn't address any of the points mentioned in the article, and in fact, doesn't address the general theme of the article.
There is no subtext at all, the article is simple and clear, and one would be hard pressed to think that the author is trying to force anyone to do anything while reading it.
The author did actually rename it now that it suddenly has a much wider audience! It's now "Open source projects: consider running office hours"
Given that, I think we can safely assume his original audience (blog regulars) didn't mind the title. I realize accuracy is only a small effort, but it IS an effort. Why spend more time on it than is necessary for the audience?
I have forgotten about this guidelines. I will try to follow them better in future (ling is in footer and leads to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ).
Though my comment was at least attempt to be "this title if taken alone is problematic, maybe changing it would better" not "you are awful person and your title was bad".
It is likely that I should be formulate it better and spend more time on making it (though I admit that I expected that it will be ignored rather than upvoted to the top comment...).
The qualifier "consider" is very important but was removed by the OP.
Pro tip: if you don't mean should, don't write should.
Avoiding reasoning about the nature of your beliefs (and why others might be subject to those beliefs) is a weakness in thinking.
"Should" is also the easiest way to create a clickbait headline to argue about because there are so many individual interpretations and following justifications of "should".