Yeah except the tones and walk messages still play, it just doesn't spam wait over and over at a red. Do you think because it's playing a satirical message blind people will ignore the tones and just start running into traffic?
I don't think it even does spam "wait" over and over; I've never heard that in my life. With every such crosswalk I've encountered (in multiple cities across the US) it only says "wait" for each time you press the button.
Haha I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way. Apart from that you can argue about programmable speakers all you like.
They're annoyed at your "Have you considered that there's a reason?" for strongly implying there's an explanation for the incorrect fact. They dislike that whole type of statement. Their reading comprehension is fine and you're just nitpicking their wording.
Also, saying "Have you considered that there's a reason?" is not at all the same as "asking why it does a thing". It's a strong statement on its own. If your original comment had stopped after the first sentence then you would have gotten a very different response.
Wow, your edit of your post is completely different from your original message - "You asked why it spams wait over and over. But it doesn't. That's the incorrect claim."
Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension?
> They said they dislike the person that says to explain an incorrect fact.
No, they said - literally - 'I have a pet peeve where people “explain why things are a certain way” when they are not that way'. Your reading is not what they said. I'm sorry but you're batting .000 here.
> You're the one that said to explain an incorrect fact.
A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"?
edit: Dude, you've edited your post at least 4 times in the past 12 minutes, all of your posts being drastically different points, so I'm not sure which one I should respond to. I think I've responded to your 2nd edit, which I've essentially quoted in entirety as I saw it on my screen. Your current post is equally as ridiculous, but it isn't clear to me that I should spend any time on it if you are just going to edit it to be a completely different point again.
> Why did you edit it so drastically? Was it because of poor reading comprehension?
Yes I fucked up reading at first.
It's correct now.
Appending without editing: I've had a long day, I don't usually edit nearly as much.
Appending without editing: I should have just deleted it and made a new comment, I guess? I didn't know you were trying to reply, sorry.
Appending without editing:
> A person asserted something (through conversational norms), and I basically said "Isn't there a reason for that?", and now I'm the one who is being argued with as if I asserted the thing in the first place. Why aren't you responding to streetmeat, telling them that it doesn't spam "wait...wait"?
The problem was not the first sentence where you did that. The problem was the second sentence. Don't motte and bailey this.
Appending without editing:
Also for the record I stand by the intent of the lines you quoted, though the wording is flawed in the first quote and fixed in my final version. The entirely incorrect thing I said at first is gone and you didn't respond to it so at least that worked out.
And did not do anything malicious like remove the actual accessibility tones.
My point isn’t that they are some kind of Robin Hood, but that their actions don’t warrant anger, whereas the insecurity of a public system we rely on… should.
They could just be "not thoughtful". I understand that you want to present the alternate viewpoint as absurd in order to bolster your own viewpoints, but this isn't reddit and you don't need to operate this way here
Can you look in the mirror for a second? You accuse me of a bad argument, but then this entire post is you just asserting your viewpoint as true, with basically just a "cmon, obviously!".
That is not what I did. I provided multiple examples of how they left various accessibility features intact. In fact, I have not found one they hadn’t left intact.
Have you? If so, that would be a useful argument, and I would not respond in the same way.
Thus far, I have provided some semblance of evidence, and you have provided speculation, which is a bad argument.
I’m not saying I’m right. I might not be. I am saying your argument is not.
They're not being as dismissive as "cmon, obviously!", and they're citing a pretty good piece of evidence (the tones still being there) while the other side is citing nothing.
You apparently don't understand that "hacker" has multiple definitions. Sorry to hear that. The guy who named this site wrote extensively on "hackers", which you're free to read. Try "hackers and painters" first.
If you think this is a site all about people who gain illicit access to systems which they shouldn't have, then you must be very confused by the content frequently appearing here.
Now, I'm curious why you responded to me, but you didn't bother responding to OP who seemed to think that the only definition of hacker was essentially "someone who illicitly breaks into other people's systems".
Because that is not what they said. Their comment was “Apparently hacking is something the denizens of Hacker News disapprove of these days?”
Hacking, by one common definition, generally refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, often challenging to execute and amusing to the community. This was certainly true at MIT.
This fits all of those characteristics. That it happened to involve doing something illegal was not the point.
Putting something on the MIT dome is also illegal; if you get caught, you’ll get charged with trespassing. But trespassing was never the point.
