> I don't know whether you framed it as such for clickbait or out of genuine obsession
The latter. Notice that I did not submit my own article to HN. I published it to my blog, for the people who already follow me, either via RSS or by Mastodon, and who already appreciate my writing. I did not write my article for HN commenters, and in many cases I would prefer that my blog posts not be submitted to HN, but I have no control over that.
> If you don't want any negative commentary about your article or opinions, don't post them on the internet.
This is victim blaming. You are responsible for your own commentary. Your comment started by insulting me and calling me a name. Do better. Also, HN claims to have better commentary than the rest of the internet. The issue here is not mere criticism, which is fine, but rather shallow dismissal, which is not.
> I too feel that your evidence is substantially lacking
You're both misinterpreting the entire purpose of the post. I explain this in later replies to this thread. My post was quite short, only 391 words, and not even intended to make an argument. You're expecting way too much here. You need to think about why an author writes an article and who the article was written for. If you think an author is completely flopping on their face, perhaps you just misunderstood what the author was trying to do.
> However, the merging that people were concerned about, and which was refuted by Apple, is fundamental merging that would make macOS less useful to people through either inappropriate UI choices (removing fine interface elements to support touch) and locking down the platform entirely to third-party software ecosystems.
This is indeed what I'm concerned about. It was denied but not refuted by Apple. And I think the darkening of videos is one (among countless) of those inappropriate UI choices.
> You're both misinterpreting the entire purpose of the post. I explain this in later replies to this thread. My post was quite short, only 391 words, and not even intended to make an argument. You're expecting way too much here. You need to think about why an author writes an article and who the article was written for. If you think an author is completely flopping on their face, perhaps you just misunderstood what the author was trying to do.
Jeff, I don't think you can impose on HN commenters what parts of your post they're allowed to engage with. Your intention might just have been to provide an example of something that (you think) supports a point that (you think) is already proven. But people aren't required to accept your priors when discussing your post, particularly when they're doing so off on some third-party forum.
Perhaps people are misunderstanding you... or perhaps they understand you perfectly well and disagree with you, and want to talk about that disagreement.
I think the bigger issue is that someone thought this post was worthy of HN discussion. It's more concerning to me than lapcat writing for an audience that knows his priors and him then choosing to forego an in-depth critique of what Apple has done here. The fact this piece lacks the substance and depth which can make for a good HN conversation is not lapcat's fault.
This is a gross insult. Please review and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> I don't know whether you framed it as such for clickbait or out of genuine obsession
The latter. Notice that I did not submit my own article to HN. I published it to my blog, for the people who already follow me, either via RSS or by Mastodon, and who already appreciate my writing. I did not write my article for HN commenters, and in many cases I would prefer that my blog posts not be submitted to HN, but I have no control over that.
> If you don't want any negative commentary about your article or opinions, don't post them on the internet.
This is victim blaming. You are responsible for your own commentary. Your comment started by insulting me and calling me a name. Do better. Also, HN claims to have better commentary than the rest of the internet. The issue here is not mere criticism, which is fine, but rather shallow dismissal, which is not.
> I too feel that your evidence is substantially lacking
You're both misinterpreting the entire purpose of the post. I explain this in later replies to this thread. My post was quite short, only 391 words, and not even intended to make an argument. You're expecting way too much here. You need to think about why an author writes an article and who the article was written for. If you think an author is completely flopping on their face, perhaps you just misunderstood what the author was trying to do.
> However, the merging that people were concerned about, and which was refuted by Apple, is fundamental merging that would make macOS less useful to people through either inappropriate UI choices (removing fine interface elements to support touch) and locking down the platform entirely to third-party software ecosystems.
This is indeed what I'm concerned about. It was denied but not refuted by Apple. And I think the darkening of videos is one (among countless) of those inappropriate UI choices.