Calling every curt response "dismissive" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The original comment personally resonated with me, and while the linked project is kinda neat I guess there is a growing contingent of us that see AR as an inadequate stopgap on the way to holography. My response would have been very much similar.
But I also take issue with this because it sort of compels people to be wordy and force them to use awful gentrified business-bullshit speak where everything has to be couched as positive. There is value in being blunt and direct, and there is value in an economy of words. Just because someone may not be feeling bothered enough to couch their language in pleasantries, or they are incapable of formulating the words in a satisfactory manner, shouldn't mean that they also shouldn't speak at all.
I get that some sorts of negativity "sprout up like weeds" but if we truly want an arena of thoughtful, critical discussion then perhaps we should give such comments more benefit of the doubt.
"Meh, just AR, not true holographics" was such a classic shallow dismissal that it should be easy to understand why so many readers, including me, reacted negatively.
No one is calling every critical response dismissive nor compelling anyone to use gentrified business speak, false pleasantry, or any of the other things you're worried about.
Edit: one thing that you and the GP appear to have in common is a pre-existing understanding of "AR as an inadequate stopgap on the way to holography". Ok, that's interesting! but the context that pre-exists inside your (or anyone's) head doesn't communicate itself to others. It needs to be explained explicitly. That can be done without putting down the work of someone else who happens to be working on (say) AR.
If you express the point only as a putdown, without the surrounding information that would make it meaningful, then you're going to feel like you made a substantive comment (because for you it's resting on a substantive foundation that you're taking for granted) but it's going to land with readers (who don't have that internal context) as a shallow dismissal.
By "you" I don't mean you personally, but all of us—we all take our own internal state for granted. For HN to function well, though, commenters (all of us) need to work on not doing that, but rather explaining enough relevant background to make our messages interesting instead of empty or mean. The GP's second paragraph did a great job of that—just not the first bit.
Hey while you're at it can you remove my rate limit please. If I'm not meant to post then you should ban me. This reduces my ability to fully participate but does not at all reduce my ability to make fun of cowards.
I've removed the rate limit as a good faith gesture, but please keep in mind that we're trying for quality over quantity and particularly trying to avoid flamewars. "Make fun of cowards" is a distinctly inauspicious phrase in that respect.
But I also take issue with this because it sort of compels people to be wordy and force them to use awful gentrified business-bullshit speak where everything has to be couched as positive. There is value in being blunt and direct, and there is value in an economy of words. Just because someone may not be feeling bothered enough to couch their language in pleasantries, or they are incapable of formulating the words in a satisfactory manner, shouldn't mean that they also shouldn't speak at all.
I get that some sorts of negativity "sprout up like weeds" but if we truly want an arena of thoughtful, critical discussion then perhaps we should give such comments more benefit of the doubt.