> I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it.
> There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments.
And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
You are the one who brought up reception here, not me. I merely responded. So if you don’t like it, don’t choose it yourself first. All that happened is you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself, but you miscalculated and are now claiming the metric was never even valid.
You used reception here to argue against me, going so far as to claim that people are “protecting HN” from my comment. Given that, I pointed out another form of measuring said reception. Suddenly, you were up in arms about using reception and continue to protest it.
As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it.
> There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments.
And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.