Technically Correct - Futurama

And yet, @kyro and I and I suspect many others were able to understand perfectly well what @sama meant. The original comment > what does "ruthless" mean nowadays in valley newspeak? or did i miss a memo about "nice"..? reads as if the commenter didn't even attempt to understand what @sama meant. Instead, it appears as if he saw that what @sama wrote was technically inconsistent and glommed onto that without actually engaging with the essay. If the commenter was simply offering up copyediting advice, well, he could've left out the color ("valley newspeak", etc.). As it stands, the comment is utterly boring and, I suspect, reflects the attitude @kyro meant to highlight with the phrase "forced stupidity." "Technically correct" is not actually the best kind of correct ( [this video] ).

> You can define any space as "not crowded" if you narrow it down enough. I mean, you’re technically correct¹ but that’s not exactly helpful because the inverse is also true: You can define any space as “crowded” if you widen it enough. That is to say it is perfectly plausible I am wrong and the space was crowded, but that argument doesn’t really prove or disprove it. > That was the point really, they entered a crowded space & re-defined it with their offering. Especially if you allow someone in the space to redefine it. At that point all bets are off and anyone can claim anything. ¹ The best kind of correct: [this video]