Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I didn't specify whether it was policy or implementation or both. The government isn't a monolithic structure w/ everyone being equally stupid or intelligent. In the case of nuclear warheads I'm certain the people who have to do the actual work are not idiots even if the policymakers are idiots.


> decided that the new policy would be the proper response.

How were you talking about anyone but policymakers?


> people who work for him

Does not mean only policymakers. In any case, I'm not concerned about this issue so good luck to you.


They do when we're talking about policies being made? I'm not super invested in this either, I just don't understand why we're going around in circles here.


Assume less & you'll be less confused in general.


I shouldn't have assumed you meant all of the words you said, or what?


You can do whatever you want but my recommendation is to assume less & ask for clarifications instead of digging yourself into a bigger hole.


I asked for clarification on the 3rd and 4th reply, when it was clear we were going around in circles. Here's another request for clarification - it seems like you are recommending that I shouldn't assume you mean the words you say?

Also if you'd like to elaborate on this "big hole", please do. I'm only seeing one kind of hole here.


You should probably get your vision checked then. Eyesight & cognition tend to deteriorate w/ age.


From your profile:

> Address the substance of my arguments


That is indeed what it says in my profile but this conversation has convinced me I'll need to add another clause about making too many assumptions.


Assumptions are required to have any kind of communication. Assumptions like you're speaking the English language and we each mean the words that you say. But apparently that is too many assumptions for you. Won't someone think of the assumptions!?!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: