jahsome

There was absolutely nothing backhanded about anything I said. I regret if it came across that way.

I wish you'd have elaborated on specifics and actually tried to understand, rather than telling me what I believe. I can see now you just want to be angry at someone, and I'm no longer interested in engaging with you. In any case, I'm genuinely sorry for whatever I've done to activate you, and I wish you well.

> Pretending that we are in full blown dictatorship is, in my view, still cynical.

Could you please point to what I said that implies I'm pretending a "full blown dictatorship?" I apologize if that's somehow what I indicated. It certainly wasn't my intent.

Can you explain how openly admiring someone's idealism is of "low quality"?

I envy the worldview it's possible someone can take money from another and still maintain independence.

What's up with the straw men?

I was being sincere, my friend. I genuinely envy that worldview. I long for it. I wish above nearly all else I could reset. I was being authentic and vulnerable. Why does that infuriate you?

Read your statement again and tell me who the pessimist is, and who is most in need of a break from the internet.

Fair enough, perhaps I could have said "normal is relative"

A behavior may be typical, or common maybe, but I think "normal" evokes certain connotations when describing human behavior.

You can childishly call me all the names you'd like, but you're distinctly wrong. Words have literal meanings whether you accept that fact or not.

The operative word you have repeatedly used is interpretation. Anything that requires interpretation is inherently and literally NOT obvious.

I guess it's time for a series rewatch!

*for anyone out of the loop this is a reference to Arrested Development -- incredible show!

I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no?

Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.

"It's just a banana hackers, how much could it cost?! $5?"

Though that joke is in desperate need of an inflationary update.

It's not that "nuts" to take the literal meaning of people's own words. Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though. It might be common for folks to misspeak (mistype), but that by no stretch of the imagination makes their actual meaning obvious. It's quite literally the opposite...

Step into any Walmart and look at the carts in the customer service section full of just-returned merchandise, waiting to be returned to the shelves. You might be surprised with what you see.

> but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar

Some people have no choice. Checking other stores and planning multiple trips is exactly what they do, e.g. those on fixed income, coupon power-users, etc.

Outside our comfy bubble here, there are a LOT more folks in that camp than those buying luxury goods.

> No one price matches for protein bars because it's a commodity item with minimal price differences (and people often have a preferred brand anyway), but they probably do for $2k laptop.

This is the most "silicon valley" statement I've ever read on this website. Perhaps I'm just being obtuse and misunderstanding, but the assertion people don't price match groceries is so, so wrong. Many, many, many people have no choice. Far more than those regularly purchasing laptops.

It's pretty funny how you tried to completely sidestep the accusation, but still managed to confirm it

Or, alternatively, you're just bad at it.

This is such an absolutely wild and demonstrably incorrect interpretation, I can only assume it's satire

I don't recall saying or even implying it was "the most kind and empathetic thing we can do" -- can you point me to where I gave that impression?

The difference is the airwaves are a limited transmission method. A broadcast medium is not regulated because it's dangerous, it's regulated because it's scarce.

You are correct and I am making a conscious choice. I'm not being taken for a ride, I'm willingly offering one, even to those who would rob me blind given the chance.

Of course there are those who would exploit. But I'm not going to punish the well-deserving masses because of the unscrupulous few. It's a very small sacrifice I can make each year, which has the potential to positively impact the lives of thousands of families, and for generations to come.

Were I to refuse participation in such an opportunity to "protect" myself, I'd be no less selfish and greedy than those you warned me about.

Do I believe in community, empathy, kindness toward my fellow human beings? Why, yes. Yes I do. Am I willing to pay a few bucks to put my money where my mouth yes. Why yes, yes I am.

ESL AI?

They appear to have recently removed the "show fewer shorts options" in the app. I pay for premium and the idea I cannot remove them from the app even as part of that is absolutely infuriating.

The vast majority of hn commentors, I'd wager.

And yet, if they were raising a Series A, they'd be lauded as "disruptors"

I've long wished for a 'filter' feature for the hn feed -- namely the old trend of web3 slop -- but with little else than keywords to filter, it would likely be tedious and inaccurate. Ironically, I think with AI/LLMs it could be a little easier to analyze.

Another day, another hn thread of "this model changes everything" followed immediately by a reply stating "actually I have the literal opposite experience and find competitor's model is the best" repeated until it's time to start the next day's thread.

In no way?

I don't see how the two are related, personally. I'm regularly accused of over-abstraction specifically because I aspire to make each abstraction do as little as possible, i.e. fewest lines possible.

It's quite relevant, considering the OP was a single word with an example. It's kind of ridiculous to claim what is or isn't relevant when the discussion prompt literally could not be broader (a single word).