Comment by vpribish

As a native born english speaker, I disagree completely. It's very obvious what he means. This is a severe reading comprehension problem, not a problem with the author.

> What counts as “negative” here? Criticism of technology, skepticism toward announcements, complaints about industry practices, frustration with APIs.

So the group synced a dumb bias. It must change. Not the author; they provided qualitative evidence that was not their intent. Update your opinion and perspective with that new evidence.

Imo it's on the individual members of the groupthinkers to realize a math term (negatives are a thing in math) applied to mathematical data is not a qualitative attack on anyone; they must accept the groupthink has lost the plot.

Consensus isn't always preferable. See religion.

The context is obviously a mathematical analysis and math comes with negatives.

If the critiques had actual substance to contribute to the world they wouldn't be so easily offended. Publishing low effort complaints that are little more than demands by far away randos to better to conform to their arbitrary standards is a laughable expectation. Internet randos can pound sand; they prop up nothing individually or collectively given most forums are a few thousand to tens of thousands of unique people with a platform but no real democratic power.

Social media hyper-normalizing sentiment is just empowering social bullying by pressuring people doing the necessary work to think include the bike-shedding of non-contributors. Whole bunch of farm animals want to eat bread while letting the rooster do the work.