= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on The Universal Medical Journal Article Error - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (189)
Well, dammit, I wanted to delete this and rewrite above, but you can't delete comments anymore. This is not retracted, but I can't un-retract it.
You are wrong, and you have not learned to reconsider your logic when many smart people disagree with you.
You can delete retracted comments by reloading the page and clicking on a new delete icon that replaces the retract icon.
Only if no-one's replied to them.
I'm not sure that's true. See here
People can reply to any comments that they still see in their browser page, even though they've been "deleted", if the replier has not refreshed said browser page.
EDIT TO ADD: As I see that wedrifid also mentions below.
Possibly there is also a similar effect if the deleter hasn't refreshed his browser page.
Possibly. Specifically it would be if you (as the example) had retracted the page then refreshed it (to get the 'delete' button available to you) and then there is an arbitrary period of time after which you click the delete button without first refreshing again. (Untested, but those are the circumstances under which it would be at all possible if the code is not specifically designed to prevent it.)
Why are you not sure of facts that are subject to easy experiments? (update: arundelo is correct)
Experiment clutters the venue, and being less blunt avoids the appearance of a status conflict.
If deletion is possible, there is very little clutter. If deletion is not possible, and the comment says "I can't figure out how to delete this," at least it discourages other people's experiments. But this thread is itself clutter, so I don't think that is your true rejection. As to bluntness, I conclude that my being less blunt caused you to confabulate bullshit.
PS - I experiment on the open thread.
On reflection, it is probably more accurate for me to say, "I wasn't interested in experimenting, including for concern that the experimenting would look low status, and I have higher preferred ways of acting low status."
As for my own choice not to be blunt, you are not correctly modelling my thought process.
In short, I gave two reasons for my action, and you might be right that one was confabulation, but not the one you identify as confabulation.
I have performed the experiment in question and it seems to support arundelo's claim. I am not able to remove this comment. At the very least it demonstrates that the experiment required to prove arundelo's fully general claim is false is not the 'easy' one.
Well, now I'm totally confused. Checking Eugine_Nier's account on ibiblio shows that the comment is missing. (Searching for the word "sarcasm" will get you to about when the comment took place, at least as of the date of this comment)
See my investigation. Short answer: race condition.
Thanks actually experimenting. My beliefs were two months out of date. I stand by my objection to Tim's comment.
It is possible that the comment was banned by a moderator rather than deleted by the author. (If so, it will still appear if you look at the user's comment page.)
After retraction EDIT: TimS. I can't seem to delete this comment even after refreshing.
As it happens, I remember what Eugine_Nier wrote, and I am certain it did not meet the local criteria for mod-blocking.
(Anonymous downvoter: What is it in wedrifid's post you'd like to see less of? Helpful commentary about the mechanics of this site is not on my list of things to downvote).
Interesting. This suggests that a feature has changed at some point since the retraction-then-delete feature was first implemented. (I have memories of needing to be careful to edit the text to blank then retract so as to best emulate the missing 'delete' feature.)
I notice that I am confused. Investigates.
ArisKatsaris suggests browser refresh, not timestamps, is the issue.
He is describing the same phenomenon. The timestamps give an indication as to how likely the race condition is to occur based on the delays between GETs and POSTs. If the comments were a day apart I would have tentatively suggested "Perhaps one of you deleted or replied to a comments page that was old?". Whereas given that the timestamps were within 3 minutes I could more or less definitively declare the question solved.
Thanks. I'm not technologically fluent enough to tell the difference between what you said and what he said without the explanation.
For the record, I did in fact delete the comment.