good question. recently there was a "capitalism as a ponzi scheme" article and i wrote that ponzi had better insight into nature than malthus. i can't see anything objectionable here - just an expression of opinion and an implicit comparison between tim o'reilly's thinking and that of thomas malthus. i got dinged 2 points for this and i just can't understand why. if there was a reason so be it but i dont understand why anonymous negativity like this is part of the system. it has made me hold back from further commenting... till now :)
I wouldn't have dinged you - but I don't think that the comment really added anything. Since as I understand it the karma's supposed to be about improving the SNR that moderation seems reasonable.
If you'd justified why you felt that Ponzi had a "better" insight than Malthus then it would have been a useful contribution.
Yes indeed. I think your comment was too brief. A statement without justification is not particularly interesting to me, and I imagine others felt the same and downmodded you.
thanks that is the feedback i needed; it seems when an online community resonates with you this misleads you to think they would get anything you say. its a kind of projected myopia.
I see plenty of pointless, off-topic comments that deserved to be downvoted without explanation. But I agree that if you want to downvote just because you disagree, you should probably state your case why. Or upvote someone who already has.
