Yes it is, but personally, I find it really useful to have a summary before trying to dive into a reddit post/thread. I find reddit nearly impossible to follow, so having an initial summary helps me.
That's why I posted this, which does contain a link to the original for those who want to chase it further.
HN policy is to submit the original and put summaries, paywall bypass, further reading etc. in a comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
Yes ... yes it is. And being here since 2009 (with this account, longer with some previous accounts) I do know that.
Clearly people agree with you, as the story has now been flagged into oblivion.
But it's a guideline. I was guided by it, but made an independent decision. On this occasion I had a good reason for doing other than follow that guideline, and I will do so again in the future if I have what I deem to be good enough reasons.
I’ll admit I didn't make it clear how my comment was on topic. It is indeed a reaction to TFA.
We need to protect this. This is beautiful in its own small way. And as it stands any number of the people who stepped up to help the son out were doing so outside of any legal protection or codified right to distribute and crack this old piece of software.
That wasn't name calling. "You are stupid" is name calling, "your statement was incoherent" is to point out that the speaker failed to get his point across and needs to try again. Christians have a saying "hate the sinner, not the saint", and the basic philosophy of that applies here. We must separate one from the other, something you did not do here when you accused me of name calling.
"That was totally incoherent" is definitely calling names in the sense that the HN guidelines use the term, and ask you not to do:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Rights aren't achieved by consensus. There is no democratic vote on the laws of Nature and what derives from it. Society is not a creature of Nature and thus does not exist. It's an abstract notion derived from the collective schizophrenia of its individual constituents. It has no life of its own, nor is it worthy of one. Only the living have rights.
In the best case they are. The alternative is that rights are achieved by benevolent dictators, and that leads to bad places fast when the dictator is replaced.
> There is no democratic vote on the laws of Nature and what derives from it.
Eh, ok? What does "what derives from it" mean here?
> Society is not a creature of Nature and thus does not exist.
Well that was just not true. Society exists in reality. That's like saying thoughts do not exist because there are only single neurons. Or seas do not exist, there are only single H2O molecules.
> Only the living have rights.
There we agree at least. Although I should say not "have" but "should have". We should have rights. In many parts of the world though the collective consensus is that they should not, like in Taliban Afghanistan.
archived original reddit thread https://archive.is/bQMmn