Comment by lifthrasiir
2 years ago
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.
Come on. She was already aware that it is not literally ("kind of") a scam, but pointing out that there is a parallel ("if you sell someone the moon and give them a block of cheese", I believe advertisements were not yet fulfilled in 2021). If she was meant to mercilessly bash V why did she rather mention "there are good ideas there" and give suggestions for improvement?
> 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.
Of course if she only said that your interpretation is more likely. But she first stated "I hope this feedback can help make V a productive tool for programming" in 2019, and the last post in June 2020 stated that:
> I would like to see this situation result in a net improvement for everyone involved. V is an interesting take on a stagnant field of computer science, but I cannot continue to comment on this language or give it any of the signal boost I have given it with this series of posts.
This exactly aligns with what she said in the comment I quoted (the only addition is "[V] should be ignored", which is another way to say "no more signal boost"). You are free to disagree with my interpretation, but your interpretation doesn't seem to explain this paragraph.
---
> 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.
I also have my share of people saying mean things to me (as I've said elsewhere, I also went through lots of shitposts), and I learned that I have only a finite amount of time to deal with them. Salvage what you can learn from them (positive or not), but otherwise minimize useless interactions because it is often the case that actually I was at fault, or even that no one is at fault and the human language is just so imperfect. I believe the latter was indeed the case for aforementioned reasons.
(In the case anyone wondering why I'm trying to interact this much then, I still want V to be successful and my experience suggests that no one said something like my comments so far. It is sort of a folk knowledge and many take or assume it granted, but it has to be learned and few will tell you that fact.)
And 1 year later in June 2021 the author stated that V should die.