Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> ...we're both just upset...

No? I'm rather excited that perhaps you'll take this as a "teachable moment" to adjust your behavior in a much more prosocial direction.

So many people wade into a conversation without actually having the time and energy required to actually participate in that conversation. Even if we ignore the ragebait bots and people paid to act like them, I'd expect that this describes the behavior of the vast majority of folks -when measuring by comment volume- who choose to comment on the internet.

Public discourse would be far better if more people were aware of the liberation delivered to each of us long ago by Mr. Marcus Aurelius. [0]

And -well- if you jumped in here because of a vague sense of duty towards your employer... remember that not only are they a -more or less- multi-trillion-dollar company, but they have survived -among so many other things- renaming the company to commemorate its new "this will wreck the company if we don't win it!" project and then burning tens of billions of dollars on said project over the course of just a few years with precious little to show for it. They'll survive some negative sentiment in some random HN thread just fine... they don't need your backup.

[0] <https://cramulus.tumblr.com/post/710881347902849025>



Ha perhaps I misread your excitement as being upset, glad to hear!

Nice Aurelius quote, I'll remember that one


Don't forget to be less of a shithead in the future, and stay out of conversations where you can't actually contribute anything useful -like this one- yeah? We're each personally responsible to promote healthy discourse... noone else can!


Here's what happened:

1. I responded to the quote and thread tokepi posted. I stand by that response—the supposed "prompt injection" was a trivial misunderstanding which Meta had already publicly clarified.

2. You sarcastically replied by linking me to another comment that said "pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading." I read that as the top of the linked thread. You meant his profile page, which would have meant reading everything he'd posted since the investigation began to find the posts you had in mind, which came days later in separate threads. I noted I didn't read everything he wrote, clarified what I did read, and asked you to state your specific concern.

3. You didn't state it. You linked five more posts on issues unrelated to the thread I'd responded to. I acknowledged I hadn't seen those, said they were at least not trivially confused the way the first thread was, and bowed out because I shouldn’t discuss specifics of my employer’s security setup beyond what's been publicly disclosed (for obvious reasons).

4. You responded with more sarcasm and a lecture on "netiquette". Then you finished by explaining "prompt injection", which is strange: even @jonny acknowledged the supposed prompt injection from the initial thread was intended behavior, and the posts you linked provide no evidence of prompt injection. So you bringing it up calls into question whether you were actually parsing our conversation and jonny's investigation.

5. I tried twice to end this amicably. Both times you came back with insults and more lectures.

Do you think you upheld your own standards of "netiquette" and "healthy discourse" here? How is being simultaneously antagonistic while refusing to articulate your own perspective helpful to anyone?




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: