Hacker News Reader

Comment by mintplant | Hacker News Reader

Well, there you have it. The original comment prompted a large discussion, eventually leading to further clarification of the meaning of the design itself. I don't see what's wrong with that; conversations wouldn't be very interesting at all if everyone unilaterally agreed with each other.

View on HN

More like I wasted a lot of time spelling out something that was already obvious. This is a bug in forums, not a feature, and one that has bitten me many times. You can't be concise on forums, because if you leave any possible room for misinterpretation, someone will reply with it.

which often evolves to a rather refreshing discussion that doesn't have to necessarily end with an agreement

That is true, but isn't it only revealing the problem that correct interpretation is not conveyed, not causing it? If it wasn't possible to reply, the same people would still hold the misinterpretation, but then the author wouldn't see it.

Communication is hard.

PG described a process by which the most literal-minded participants -- those with abnormally low tolerance for ambiguity -- drag everyone down to their level. I would welcome measures that neutralize that process even if the negative consequence you describe comes to pass.

Why is "100% clear communication" an assumed universal good? Some jokes are only funny because some people don't get them. And yet, this--as I might term it--"populist heartburn" at realizing one is in the not-getting-it majority, and demanding an explanation, ruins the fun of those who do.

Bob Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin Man" might be appropriate reading here. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com