It would probably have been safer for the author to explicitly point out that this is true for them specifically, rather than a general rule, because this way they run the risk of never hearing the end of it.
Anyone that assumes an author is speaking for everyone will find something else to gripe about, IMO.
It depends, some think it's fun :)
Oh, and the irony
Always a hazard when you use objective language to describe the subjective.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49977612
It is clearly their opinion, but it was downvoted heavily. Doesn’t help that he is pro AI.
i read it as the former, and hence upvoted your comment because i agree, but the downvotes of your comment suggest that others are reading the latter which feels wrong to me. that is of course if they actually agree with me.
I don't think that downvotes should be used to voice disagreement with a poster's substantive point. The down arrow is too cheap a shot. I'd never have allowed that on my board (when I was a teenage sysop, I mean). Disagreement should be verbalized and put into open conversation. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to people being required to voice a reason for their downvotes around here, and letting those reasons be analyzed. It would make everyone feel better. "Pure spite" being only a funny reason in the ludicrous circle of Joseph Heller debate we find ourselves in, in this particular thread. I'm glad you saw the humor, and that's what makes us human ;)
And no, I don't feel bad at all for taking the upvote! Next time I toss out a flaming dumpster of semantic quibbling, which I'm guilty of at least once a week, I hope someone takes an extra minute to explain their downvote to me, too.
I'm just bein a pain in the ass anyway. Hope you know that. It was a barstool comment. This is why it's better to sit at a bar and joke around. Everyone gets offended in equal measure, but you know you all love each other anyway.
It can make sense to disagree and argue with the former, but for the latter, having different subjective opinion doesn't invalidate or contradict the original.
(In my opinion.)
When I say "juggling is fun", I'm talking about my own experience. I'm not saying that everyone else should drop their hobbies and take up juggling.
Why should the author have to couch the headline of their article with this kind of defensive language that you suggest? The very first word of the article is "I", it is clear that the author is talking about their own experience.
It's ironic but you should have started with "In my opinion", "I think" or something to that effect. Now you never hear the end of it!
Oh this is a great use of the phrase.
unless you want to water down the title with an "i think"