> Sorry, you're just incorrect about both the content of Colin's comment
You seem to have misinterpreted me. I wasn't saying Colin was attempting to clarify (I didn't know his intent), I was saying that is his comment was factually clarifying. I didn't have any evidence as to his intent at the time, but I didn't see a reason to assume anything other than he was being helpful.
> Yes, it doesn't denigrate anyone, but that's a really low bar.
That's not even half of the criteria I listed, so it's not really the bar I set at all, is it?
The comment contributed by clarifying the submission name for those that had not yet read the article. It additionally contributed by adding some factual information about some of the referenced features and how they are used in the kernel.
I don't think anything he said takes away from the article, so I don't think he's necessarily missing the point.
> I do give authors the benefit of the doubt when something isn't clear. That's why I couched my message in "I think" and asked a question instead of just asserting facts.
I think you also misunderstood what I was trying to accomplish, how much of my statement was meant to be a condemnation and correction, and how much was leveled at you instead of the general readership. The only existing reply to you at the time I posted was referencing people on HN that like to nitpick. It was meant as a "this isn't necessarily negative, so let's just take it for what it provides, and it provides some usefulness" and not as "shame on you for assuming the worst".
Edit: Blah, there was some weird wording in that last paragraph
You seem to have misinterpreted me. I wasn't saying Colin was attempting to clarify (I didn't know his intent), I was saying that is his comment was factually clarifying. I didn't have any evidence as to his intent at the time, but I didn't see a reason to assume anything other than he was being helpful.
> Yes, it doesn't denigrate anyone, but that's a really low bar.
That's not even half of the criteria I listed, so it's not really the bar I set at all, is it?
The comment contributed by clarifying the submission name for those that had not yet read the article. It additionally contributed by adding some factual information about some of the referenced features and how they are used in the kernel.
I don't think anything he said takes away from the article, so I don't think he's necessarily missing the point.
> I do give authors the benefit of the doubt when something isn't clear. That's why I couched my message in "I think" and asked a question instead of just asserting facts.
I think you also misunderstood what I was trying to accomplish, how much of my statement was meant to be a condemnation and correction, and how much was leveled at you instead of the general readership. The only existing reply to you at the time I posted was referencing people on HN that like to nitpick. It was meant as a "this isn't necessarily negative, so let's just take it for what it provides, and it provides some usefulness" and not as "shame on you for assuming the worst".
Edit: Blah, there was some weird wording in that last paragraph