It's not "off" unless you're simply reading it literally. If you do that, then it's a verbose way of saying "I agree". But the connotations are something like "I agree, strongly, and in particular am implying (possibly just for effect) that there are objectively right and wrong answers to this question and the other answers are wrong." The main difference is the statement that there is an objective answer to what people may be treating as a subjective question.
If it helps, you can think of it as saying more about possible disagreeing opinions than about the specific opinion expressed. "This answer is right, and the people who disagree are 'objectively' wrong."
It took me some time to catch on to this. It can certainly be jarring or obnoxious, though sometimes it can be helpful to say "yo people, you're treating this like a subjective opinion, but there are objective reasons to conclude X."
I (the comment writer), agree that it's jarring and a bit obnoxious. There were three factors that led me to write it anyway, which I've mentioned here:
Edit: Rereading the comments, I agree (heheh) with you analysis. I hadn't considered saying "I agree", because I didn't feel I was expressing an opinion, but a fact, like 1+1=2. The comment stated that the mods in fact disallow those comments and provided proof, so I didn't consider it an opinion.
Heh, and rereading my comment, it comes across as more against the usage than I actually feel. It's not my personal style, and sometimes I find it annoying, but 80% of the time I think it's totally fine and expresses a nuance that would take a lot more words otherwise. Your usage here, for example, seems totally appropriate to me.
The reason why I was reticent to use it was not because I was uncomfortable asserting an absolute (the link showed clearly that mods didn't allow these comments, I don't see any controversy there), but more so that on this type of forum, the act of voting itself is the primary method of agreement. Saying "I agree" or "this is true" or "THIS!" is generally redundant and noisy.
I really like this conversation by the way. I'm actively trying to become a better writer (by doing copywork of my favourite writers), and no other forum on Earth has this sort of conversation in such an interesting, nuanced way.
It's the first time I've ever commented that, and I was trying to figure out a way to omit it. I don't like that sort of phrase either, I especially hate comments that just go "This.", but they're rare on HN so I'm in good company.
Ultimately, I put it because:
- It was the most directly informative comment on the thread;
- It had been downvoted (greyed out) to the very bottom of the thread; and
- I wanted to express my support before making a fairly orthogonal comment without whiplashing everyone.
The whiplashing concern is the problem I run into most generally. It can be hard to reply to someone with a somewhat related idea without making it seem like you're contradicting them, particularly if they're being dogpiled on with downvotes or comments. I'd love to hear other ways to go about this, I'm always trying to improve my communication.
IMO the main problem with them is that actual competition isnt really possible. Most of the time, you just can't develop newer/denser housing where they are taking over neighbourhoods, so no real competition is possible which allows them to distort the market for their own gains.
it is stymied in part owing to regulatory requirements that makes getting loans at good rates impossible for small developers.
Notwithstanding that, the populist fantasy is that developers won't build more "because they are greedy", as though that math works out. If developers don't leave money on the table, then they'd want to build where the demand exists and it does. They face a number of constraints and bottlenecks, not just for materials/labor, but managing risk. Risk makes loans expensive, everything is built on credit. Some of that risk is compounded by the threat of litigation by NIMBYs, or regulatory requirements, or environmental review, etc.
Cheaters don't have to play like normal people to avoid detection. They just have to make it expensive to police them. For example, the game developer may be afraid of a even a 10% false positive ban rate, and as a result won't ban anyone except perhaps a small number of clean-cut cases.
Yes, the current status is that cheaters can play distingushable from humans. But my point was more that, if we create a system that allows cheating that still is equivalent to a good player, then it just feels like playing against good players. Which, to me, feels like it'd be mission accomplished.
This is one of the cases where ML methods seem appropriate.
Most cheaters are playing well outside of human limits and doing huge amounts of damage to the legitimate player experience. A 10% safety margin beyond human play sounds reasonable. A world where cheaters can only play 10% better than humans is a far better world than the one we are in at the moment.
Strong disagree. I play a lot of casual CS, and the number of extremely poor / new / young players using rudimentary cheats and performing far below average is huge. Most players don't watchfully spectate the bottom fraggers in the lobby, but if you do, the number of them brazenly using wallhacks is quite high.
These players aren't using aimbot / triggerbot (or if they are, they don't understand the gunplay and try to shoot while running), and may not even understand wall penetration, so their reaction times wouldn't look abnormal at all. From the data, they would likely have below average reaction times still.
Even though they are not performing well, their presence still massively alters the gameplay for legitimate players. For one, lurking becomes a pointless endeavor. You're better off rushing wildly than attempting any sort of stealth.
Why not? As long as there are players, some of them also want to be admins. You maybe mean commercial administration is not scalable for games with a fixed price? Sure, but give the option to the community to manage (rent) servers on their own and they will solve it themself.
Its not even an option in most titles and the industry as a whole has moved away from such hosting models, partly to ensure players receive a consistent and fair experience. Community servers were rife with admin abuse.
Its okay if you havent played an online game in 20 years mate
I'd say that "normal" (notjunior, not senior) level people have the hardest time ATM. Most jobs are either for juniors or seniors, not inbetween (anecdotal data from my experience job hunting for the last year in austria)
Where does that saying come from? I keep seeing it in a lot of different contexts but it somehow feels off to me in a way I can't really explain.
reply