Posts and comments on Less Wrong differ in some technical ways (posts have titles and tags; comments do not), but that’s all.
No, posts and comments on LessWrong do not in fact differ only in technical ways. Posts are longer than comments on average, for one, and there are many, many other non-technical ways in which they differ. Even the style of writing tends to differ, in no small part because comments tend to be written to address a single person (the poster) whereas posts only occasionally are.
If you’re gonna take this angle of trying to be technically correct while completely missing the point, you ought to at least get it right, and not rely on arguments that are clearly technically false. And your claim that posts and comments differ in technical ways only is flatly false, yet that false claim is what your whole stance rests on.
That’s not serious engagement. That’s Reddit-tier at best. (inb4 an argument about how comments on LessWrong and comments on Reddit differ in some technical ways, but that’s all)
Important or not, it is a non-technical difference, and you just deflected it. I call that a clear-cut case of blatant bad faith on your part.
Name three.
Comments are usually addressed to the author of that which they are commenting on. This is sometimes true of top-level posts too, but not as often.
And the linguistic register of posts is more formal on average than that of comments.
Along with the difference in average length, that’s three, which is generous of me considering you have yet to write a single comment in good faith in this entire discussion.
Important or not, it *is *a non-technical difference
that’s three
It’s zero.
The average (or median, etc.) comment or the average post is irrelevant for the purpose of the discussion that we’re actually having here, which is about whether it makes sense to reward contributors differently based on whether they have written a post or a comment. In such a case, the only thing that could matter is that actual post or comment. And so the only kinds of properties that could be relevant are those which attach to any post or any comment—not aggregate statistical measures of all posts on LW and all comments on LW!
(Before you call “bad faith”, consider checking whether you understand what your interlocutor is saying.)
It is literally a technical difference, and you were the person who started doing the asinine literalism in the first place. I guess it’s cool when you do it, but not when your interlocutors do?
Accusing you of “bad faith” did not go nearly far enough, evidently.
Edit: just noticed how you deflected only one of three examples, and then simply ignored the two others to tell me I had given zero. Constant sleight of hand. Crazy.
No, posts and comments on LessWrong do not in fact differ only in technical ways. Posts are longer than comments on average, for one, and there are many, many other non-technical ways in which they differ. Even the style of writing tends to differ, in no small part because comments tend to be written to address a single person (the poster) whereas posts only occasionally are.
If you’re gonna take this angle of trying to be technically correct while completely missing the point, you ought to at least get it right, and not rely on arguments that are clearly technically false. And your claim that posts and comments differ in technical ways only is flatly false, yet that false claim is what your whole stance rests on.
That’s not serious engagement. That’s Reddit-tier at best. (inb4 an argument about how comments on LessWrong and comments on Reddit differ in some technical ways, but that’s all)
See here.
Name three.
False of the example I gave in the comment you’re responding to. (False in many other cases, too.)
Unsupported claim. Produce the rebuttal, please.
Important or not, it is a non-technical difference, and you just deflected it. I call that a clear-cut case of blatant bad faith on your part.
Comments are usually addressed to the author of that which they are commenting on. This is sometimes true of top-level posts too, but not as often.
And the linguistic register of posts is more formal on average than that of comments.
Along with the difference in average length, that’s three, which is generous of me considering you have yet to write a single comment in good faith in this entire discussion.
It’s zero.
The average (or median, etc.) comment or the average post is irrelevant for the purpose of the discussion that we’re actually having here, which is about whether it makes sense to reward contributors differently based on whether they have written a post or a comment. In such a case, the only thing that could matter is that actual post or comment. And so the only kinds of properties that could be relevant are those which attach to any post or any comment—not aggregate statistical measures of all posts on LW and all comments on LW!
(Before you call “bad faith”, consider checking whether you understand what your interlocutor is saying.)
It is literally a technical difference, and you were the person who started doing the asinine literalism in the first place. I guess it’s cool when you do it, but not when your interlocutors do?
Accusing you of “bad faith” did not go nearly far enough, evidently.
Edit: just noticed how you deflected only one of three examples, and then simply ignored the two others to tell me I had given zero. Constant sleight of hand. Crazy.