> There is no "may" when we're discussing _actual_, _concrete_ events and not hypotheticals
We're not.
I replied to the comment I replied to, nothing else, and it describes a hypothetical, so the reply does too.
> counterfactuals are not an argument unless the argument it opposes employs the universal quantifier; failure to understand this is a failure to understand the difference between what it means to say "∃x" and what it means to say "∀x".
:eye-roll: My job is with theorem-proving software. You can show off knowledge of quantifiers but it's unlikely to impress.
The specific comment I replied to (not the main discussion topic as you assumed) has the informal discourse equivalent of an implicit universal quantifier.
> Netscape's corporate stratgy [...] I don't know why you focused on it [...] as if you can talk your way into it being the thing that I was referring to.
You hand-waved vaguely about "Netscape" and "lessons", giving no direction as to what you meant while insinuating we should all know them. The lack of clue sounded like a communication choice, thus intentional shorthand for "you know what I mean".
That leads a good-faith correspondent naturally to a speculative reply, to which you could politely respond with "no that's not what I meant, sorry for the ambiguity". I think it's unlikely you'll see that as rational, but it's how informal language works, otherwise it's questions all the way down.
You each lob a bunch of antagonistic comments in my direction and somehow expect that you shouldn't have to deal with someone who's bothered in turn and who opts to drag you through your own tedium. You might find that surprising, but you shouldn't.
> unlikely to impress
It was a straightforward rundown of why it was unsound to push the argument you were pushing and your failure to acknowledge that, even after having already pointed it out once before. I truly do not give a goddamn about impressing you. (Although it'd be nice if you reflected on how annoying it has been to carry out this conversation in this way.) This will be my last reply.
> The specific comment I replied to (not the main discussion topic as you assumed)
As _I_ assumed? Who's setting the stage for discourse? It's not you.
> you could politely respond with
Oh, gee. My apologies for inconveniencing you while you're barraging me with a thousand hypothetical tangents that could be true instead of demonstrating the "common sense and ordinary charity"[1] of a "good faith correspondent".
> it's how informal language works
And during the barrage, where your justification for it focuses on the particular way that I worded a restatement of the premise n comments deep, but where I failed to sufficiently qualify it by exhaustively restating all the constraints to affirm that they are, in fact, relevant and in play, you think you're in a position to hand out lessons about "how informal language works". Great.
> You hand-waved vaguely about "Netscape" and "lessons"
Nope. That comes from the comment where I referenced Netscape's triage process for the very first time. It's called an allusion at that point—I didn't make a claim about it, get pushback on it from you, and then handwave it away. And if at that point you want more detail about the thing alluded to, then, yeah, you can ask for it, but if you go on to be as discourteous as to derail with another annoying strawman—after having already been called on it once—then you shouldn't expect me to respond as if I'm dealing with anything other than a bad faith correspondent wasting my energy with the level of tedium you're dragging me into. So, given that, and given how excruciating this has been, I'm not going to deliver those details, nor wrap it in a bow.
Here's some stuff that you can Google if you actually do give a shit about any of this and weren't just looking for some avenue to throw away time as part of a vaguely social activity:
"Life Cycle of a Bug", UNCONFIRMED, INVALID, INCOMPLETE
This comes to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24674099
> There is no "may" when we're discussing _actual_, _concrete_ events and not hypotheticals
We're not.
I replied to the comment I replied to, nothing else, and it describes a hypothetical, so the reply does too.
> counterfactuals are not an argument unless the argument it opposes employs the universal quantifier; failure to understand this is a failure to understand the difference between what it means to say "∃x" and what it means to say "∀x".
:eye-roll: My job is with theorem-proving software. You can show off knowledge of quantifiers but it's unlikely to impress.
The specific comment I replied to (not the main discussion topic as you assumed) has the informal discourse equivalent of an implicit universal quantifier.
> Netscape's corporate stratgy [...] I don't know why you focused on it [...] as if you can talk your way into it being the thing that I was referring to.
You hand-waved vaguely about "Netscape" and "lessons", giving no direction as to what you meant while insinuating we should all know them. The lack of clue sounded like a communication choice, thus intentional shorthand for "you know what I mean".
That leads a good-faith correspondent naturally to a speculative reply, to which you could politely respond with "no that's not what I meant, sorry for the ambiguity". I think it's unlikely you'll see that as rational, but it's how informal language works, otherwise it's questions all the way down.