>I absolutely detest… If you [want things to work differently than how I like them], … computers are too complex for you.

Please don't do this.

Do you have a reason, or are you ironically just putting me down because you are wanting things to be different?

> To drive change in your organization, don't ask "why did this happen?". Instead, ask: What are we changing so that the same class of failure is less likely next time?

I don't understand. The implication of "don't" and "instead" is that we should somehow be able to figure out what to change, without understanding the problem.

Seems like there have been attempts at this idea for a long, long time. Interesting to see there's a PEP now.

This is not how people are expected to converse on HN.

We should be able to call out bullshit if we see it.

What's with all of the tilting at windmills?

They were here. They just all changed their position. You probably did too.

No, they didn't. I was here the whole time. What you guys did was to misrepresent the original position, then attack strawmen and celebrate reaching straw-goals.

Maybe we could try not assuming that people have the worst intentions in mind when they post here?

I wish I could, but there are so many people posting on here who explicitly signal their bad intentions that it's hard to maintain high-minded charity.

I agree there are a lot of people who do that on HN.

But https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49801324 is obviously not one of them. There is a very natural and obvious interpretation of the post that has nothing to do with the motivations it's accused of having, and the only thing that results in seeing those motivations is prejudice. It's a single-sentence, top-level comment, written by someone who has been here since 2010 and isn't infamous enough for me to recognize the username.

That appears to be against the site rules, though.

Probably it's easier to convey youth than age with a lower level of detail.

On Linux, it's whatever you say it is, after reading through `man xcompose`.