zlacker

> To be honest, calling someone "non-technical" and then "well actually"ing them about hair splitting details when the outcome is the same is patronizing, and I really wish we wouldn't treat "normies" that way.

I'm not critiquing their opinion that the result is bad. I also said the result was bad! I was critiquing the fact that someone on HN was presenting their non-technical analysis as a conclusive technical fact.

Non-technical is describing their background. It's not an insult.

I will be the first to admit I have no experience or knowledge in their domain, and I'm not going to try to interpret anything I see in their world.

It's a simple fact. This person is not qualified to be explaining what's happening, yet their analysis was being repeated as conclusive fact here on a technical forum

>>Aurorn+(OP)
"The influencer is non-technical" and "It's strange to see these claims being taken at face value on a technical forum," to me, reads as a dismissal. As in, "these claims are not true and this person doesn't have the background to comment." Non-technical doesn't need to be an insult to be dismissive. You are giving us a reason not to down weight their perspective, but since the outcome is the same regardless of their background, I don't think that's productive.

I don't really see where you said the output was "bad," you said it was a compression artifact which had a "swimming effect", but I don't really see any acknowledgement that the influencer had a point or that the transformation was functionally a filter because it changed their appearance above and beyond losing detail (made their eyes bigger in a way an "anime eyes" filter might).

If I've misread you I apologize but I don't really see where it is I misread you.

>>maxbon+o
The outcome is visible and not up for discussion, so is the fact that this is a problem for the influencer.

He's getting his compassionate nodding and emotional support in the comments over there.

I agree that him being non-technical shouldn't be discussion-ending in this case, but it is a valid observation, wether necessary or not.

>>panxyh+eK
I'm not commenting on Instagram, I'm not asking anyone to provide this random stranger with emotional support, and I'm not disputing that the analysis was non technical.