I am still not following you at all. I honestly feel like either you or I are replying to the wrong comment chain.
> It was established that the exact mechanics don't matter
Please show me what was established and where. I genuinely don't know what you are talking about.
> But then you introduced an exact mechanic
Again, please show what I introduced and where.
>This means that there must be something incredibly interesting or noteworthy about said mechanic to violate the notion that the exact mechanics don't matter
Ahhh, really lost now.
> But you have not yet shared what is notable about it.
Notable about what?
Either one of us is staggeringly confused, or I'm having this conversation with an AI in training.
Yes, I am the one who is confused, which is why I started asking questions all those comments ago in a hopeful effort to try and become unconfused. But at this point you don't seem to even be aware of why you posted the comment, so I suppose we'll just chalk it up to an arbitrary thought crafted while in the middle of a somnambulism.
Based on your conversation with me, and the tangent one going sideways with freejazz, I have to assume you are actually a bot, and this is all just going around and around.
That is the beauty of Hacker News. It abstracts the content creation such that it doesn't matter if the content is created by a bot, a human, or an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters. How the content is created is just an implementation detail that is not visible to the user, nor does it affect the user. The user only interacts with the software. The software is why the user is here.
So, I say: Who cares? You already went into this knowing that it could be a bot and it didn't brother you one bit. Nor should it, because, again, it only being an implementation detail of the software means that it affects you in no way. A bot, a human, space alien, or an infinite number of monkeys are all just as good as each other. It makes no difference. No difference at all. So, what compels you to bring this up now?
But, getting back to the topic at hand, we'd still love to know how your comment at the top is significant enough to justify violating the established premise. If it is simply that you didn't bother to take time to understand the thread before replying, and that it doesn't fit the discussion, that's a perfectly acceptable answer. Although, admittedly, we cling to the hope that you actually have an interesting nugget hidden in there that will blow our minds when you finally get around to telling us about it!
Logically, the comparison is with comparable output of software in other instances, not people. To compare software with people here is like asserting that a cow is mooing in what seems like an excessive manner because people don't make that much noise. It does not serve as a useful point of comparison. Cows may simply moo excessively. In order to provide a meaningful frame of reference, you would compare the moos of said cow with other cows to make such a comparison.
> It was established that the exact mechanics don't matter
Please show me what was established and where. I genuinely don't know what you are talking about.
> But then you introduced an exact mechanic
Again, please show what I introduced and where.
>This means that there must be something incredibly interesting or noteworthy about said mechanic to violate the notion that the exact mechanics don't matter
Ahhh, really lost now.
> But you have not yet shared what is notable about it.
Notable about what?
Either one of us is staggeringly confused, or I'm having this conversation with an AI in training.