Saying that here as someone that isn't fond of the Windows experience these days, but the two are not relatable.
Not trying to turn everything "woke", but phrasing of scenarios around this just takes away from the severity of what actual abuse is.
Username checks out, but you might want to check with your mother about how she feels about this comparison.
TFA brings up abuse not stndef.
An analogy is "a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects" and stndef is right to point out that microsoft behavior, while abusive, is not comparable to domestic abuse "in significant respects". Not even close.
The TFA title is sensational for effect and in very poor taste.
I think this post's usage is meant deliberately to be a bit edgy, to illustrate how badly Microsoft has behaved.
An encouragement to be mindful of language, and therefore discuss what shared context we're trying to build, shouldn't be so controversial in a self-professed 'thoughtful' [0] forum.
Personally, data point of 1, I think it's a bit distasteful, and would prefer to participate in a community that doesn't routinely use that kind of langauge.
I don't understand how HN's news guidelines apply to a blogger writing an article on their own blog. The controversial language was found in the article. It wasn't found in the thread you're replying to.
I think you guys complaining about provocative title and not not the substance of what is said, is what people are taking issue with.
If I didn't know better, I would honestly think it is concern trolling.
> I think it's a bit distasteful, and would prefer to participate in a community that doesn't routinely use that kind of langauge.
The entire point is that it is provocative and hyperbolic to make a statement. Often to make a statement you have to act outside what is considered polite norms and ruffle the feathers.
If Sam had given this a nice polite title (as per your preference), not as many people would have taken notice of it.
There are usually all kinds of twists and turns in a HN discussion. And it's not like we're discussing the background colour or something far off-topic, the title is a pretty noticeable part of the article. I don't think it should be verboten to discuss these things.
I agree that transgressive speech is an important tool, and tone policing is generally bad news.
To each their own.
I find it hard believe that any discussion like this is genuine and I am deeply suspicious of people that complain about hyperbolic and provocative language.
Moreover, I think complaining about it like people have is here is verging on being ridiculous tbh.
Again if I didn't know better (i.e. I don't think this is happen) I would actually think it deliberate to run interference.
Saying something like "the benchmarks took a beating in the new version" would be inoffensive but "flowers after the beating" is much more specifically about abuse in a relationship.
I don't think "Whether or not you think it's appropriate" was meant to say, don't worry it's fine. I think it just meant, let's not justify by pretending that it's about something different than it obviously is.