Comment by lifthrasiir
2 years ago
I failed to locate such a comment. And even if there was one and got removed later, the last known position is that she regret to write an article that can be perceived as toxic, no matter her intent [1].
2 years ago
I failed to locate such a comment. And even if there was one and got removed later, the last known position is that she regret to write an article that can be perceived as toxic, no matter her intent [1].
You maybe failed to find it, yet it exists:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27442724
Thank you for the explicit pointer (I searched for "die" already, but it seems that "dies" was not stemmed). And yet it is not same to "V should die"; it is rather V "should be ignored until it dies into obscurity". It is no different from "do not feed the trolls"---if V fails to prove to be something viable there would be no reason to make comments at all. And that comment predates her last position anyway, so I still think you are reading too much.
In this comment the author says V is a scam, and should be ignored until it dies. The position is clear. It's hardly unbiased.
1 reply →
> should be ignored until it dies into obscurity
That is your interpretation of what is being said, where "prove to be something viable" is being added, and graciously giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who wrote the statement.
I took it, as possibly many others, as "ignore V until it dies". Thus, "V should die", would also be near enough to the intent, malice, and vitriol be conveyed. If someone said something similar to me or about something I created, "Ignore X until it dies", would not interpret it as anything other than ill intent.
2 replies →