It would probably have been safer for the author to explicitly point out that this is true for them specifically, rather than a general rule, because this way they run the risk of never hearing the end of it.
It's not fun to always have to couch your language just in case someone doesn't naturally grasp that you're talking about your individual experience on a blog.
Anyone that assumes an author is speaking for everyone will find something else to gripe about, IMO.
It's not fun to always have to couch your language just in case someone doesn't naturally grasp that you're talking about your individual experience on a blog.
Always a hazard when you use objective language to describe the subjective.
Why does anyone ever have to say “this is, like, just my opinion, man.” Are readers so ignorant to think articles are statements of definitive fact applying to all of humanity unless told otherwise?
It seems like there's a difference between an "opinion" about the facts of the world (like the article you are referring to) and an opinion about subjective experience (like whether something is "fun" or not).
It can make sense to disagree and argue with the former, but for the latter, having different subjective opinion doesn't invalidate or contradict the original.
Low-quality, off topic, don't make sense, violate site rules, rude, abusive, being a jerk, shill, propagandist. Disagree is actually the least negative reason to downvote someone.
the least negative reason is not very clear. do you mean "it's the least negative sentiment against the comment" or the least negative kind of comment? or do you mean "it is the least bad/wrong reason" or the best reason as in: it's better to use downvotes for disagreement than for other reasons (others should then be flagged?)?
i read it as the former, and hence upvoted your comment because i agree, but the downvotes of your comment suggest that others are reading the latter which feels wrong to me. that is of course if they actually agree with me.
Seems pretty clear what they meant. Of all the absurd, pedantic nonsense in this thread, I chose to downvote yours. Purely out of spite, and for giving me the bitter realization that I've wasted too much time on HN today.
well that just made my day. best downvote ever. for two reasons, one is the explanation itself, the other the fact that you explained it. downvotes are frustrating when you have to guess why. here, have an upvote. (if that upvote made you feel guilty for downvoting me, then that's an unfortunate side effect, not intentional ;-)
I don't think that downvotes should be used to voice disagreement with a poster's substantive point. The down arrow is too cheap a shot. I'd never have allowed that on my board (when I was a teenage sysop, I mean). Disagreement should be verbalized and put into open conversation. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to people being required to voice a reason for their downvotes around here, and letting those reasons be analyzed. It would make everyone feel better. "Pure spite" being only a funny reason in the ludicrous circle of Joseph Heller debate we find ourselves in, in this particular thread. I'm glad you saw the humor, and that's what makes us human ;)
And no, I don't feel bad at all for taking the upvote! Next time I toss out a flaming dumpster of semantic quibbling, which I'm guilty of at least once a week, I hope someone takes an extra minute to explain their downvote to me, too.
I'm just bein a pain in the ass anyway. Hope you know that. It was a barstool comment. This is why it's better to sit at a bar and joke around. Everyone gets offended in equal measure, but you know you all love each other anyway.
Why would you think that the author was speaking for anyone but themselves?
When I say "juggling is fun", I'm talking about my own experience. I'm not saying that everyone else should drop their hobbies and take up juggling.
Why should the author have to couch the headline of their article with this kind of defensive language that you suggest? The very first word of the article is "I", it is clear that the author is talking about their own experience.
In particular, writing code by hand is fun for people who are good at writing code by hand. It's not at all fun for people who aren't. For those people, vibecoding means that they can produce something without the pain, something that compiles without all the time fighting the compiler, something that works (or at least mostly works) without all the debugging time.
Who gives a shit? HN holds itself in too high a regard; some peanut gallery on an AI-pilled tech forum will have no effect on the author's life one way or the other.
It's funny you say that because just this morning I was thinking about my first job and remembering how amazing it was that I was actually getting paid to do the thing that I did for fun in my spare time.
I actually hate writting code for money, I do that because it pays, but I dislike it.
I love writting code for myself: no brain dead managers or product people, no one asks "will it scale to 10000000 when natural cap is 10", no arch reviews where bunch of people that aren't familiar with the problem or the solution ask dumb questions addressed in the first slide.
If doing everything manually is so fun for you, why don't you go farm your own food and shit?
Or hell, a closer analogy: Why don't you code everything in assembly? Why use compilers?
No fucking seriously, let me see your mental gymnastics around that, where you only accept the ease-of-use you grew up on, but not the shit that makes it easier for other people coming up.
