> I sincerely doubt you produced the source
Either I did or didn't. What is not in question is that I provided a source.
> I read what you wrote, pal.
Forgive me for not believing you. I linked a source and you made speculations about what was in it. If you can't bother to read that then why should I believe you read anything else? Reading requires more than saying the words aloud in your head. At least if you want to read above a 3rd grade level. Yes, I'm being mean, but if you don't have the patience to
actually read the comment you're responding to you then you shouldn't expect anyone to have the patience to respond to your rude behavior with kindness.
alt Hacker News
Please just read what I wrote. Please. You and I are talking about different things. You showed me a source for your claim and then acted like I was somehow misreading your source when I just wasn't talking about it.
We're basically in agreement, but you want to act like you're teaching me something. It's irritating.
One can fully understand that the goal is to write provable programs and yet we do not, we write programs that need debugging. So therefore, I don't think it's hard to imagine that if we get along with that, we may get along with natural language in the control channel, despite that being also proscribed in that vaunted essay you linked to me.