> ca. everyone here

Every time someone claims “everyone on HN thought X”, I go back to check and find out that it was not true and that the discussions had both people in favour and against. Every time. But this case is particularly bad, I’m checking the top voted comments and so far the feeling is of dread and wariness, the complete opposite of what you claim.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17227286

I really wish people would stop this silly “everyone thought X” shtick. It’s embarrassing. Verification is trivial. What do you gain from it? It’s just spreading heated reactions based on a lie.

▲

scbrg 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, yes, that sentence definitely simplified matters a bit. The fact is though, that those who expressed concerns about Microsoft - in that particular thread, and in others - were generally ridiculed in roughly the tone I imitated in my original post.

Of course there were people raising concerns, though. I figured that was pretty obvious in my original post. If there hadn't been any people raising concerns, nobody would have had to dismiss them - condescendingly or not.

So yes, I (incorrectly) used the word "everyone" to mean "a lot of people" in a sentence where I figured it was quite obvious that that's what I was doing, and in a way I've seen it used before in English so many times that I thought it was a common and accepted pattern. Perhaps I am wrong about the last bit though. ESL speaker, so that's quite possible.

▲

latexr 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The fact is though, that those who expressed concerns about Microsoft - in that particular thread, and in others - were generally ridiculed in roughly the tone I imitated in my original post.

The fact the top voted comments are wary of Microsoft suggests otherwise. When people agree, they upvote and seldom comment. Of course responses are contrarian (that’s mostly when you have something to add), but that doesn’t mean that view is prevalent.

> If there hadn't been any people raising concerns, nobody would have had to dismiss them - condescendingly or not.

OK, yes, fair.

> So yes, I (incorrectly) used the word "everyone" to mean "a lot of people" (…) and in a way I've seen it used before in English so many times

It’s perfectly fine to use “everyone” and “no one” to mean “the overwhelming majority”. As in, not literally everyone but enough that the outliers are a rounding error. For example: “no one wants ants biting their genitals” (I’m sure you’ll find someone who wants that, but it’s pretty safe to assume the overwhelming majority of people don’t). But I don’t think it’s OK to use “everyone” to mean “a lot of people”. A lot of people live in China, but it would be ridiculous to say “everyone is Chinese”.

	▲	scbrg 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough. Point taken :)

▲

kelnos 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So it's true that the several of the top topmost comments are anti-MS or at least worried, but there are plenty of replies to those that are defending MS. A few of them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17229625

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17229775

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17227447

I don't think it's safe to say that the prevailing opinion there is one of concern.

	▲	latexr 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Like I said (emphasis added): > I go back to check and find out that (…) the discussions had both people in favour and against. The point is that “everyone here thought” complaints have so far never been true. > I don't think it's safe to say that the prevailing opinion there is one of concern. Comment position matters, because it means people upvoted it. If one agrees and upvotes they are less likely to comment. But even if we were to nitpick what the prevailing opinion was, it’s still not true that HN was in agreement with the sentiment expressed by the OP.

▲

sph 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This common trend of invoking the goomba fallacy is a thought-terminating way to excuse and justify away any popular opinion. Even if single individuals have different opinions, the common sentiment on the forum was that Microsoft of 2010s was not Ballmer’s Microsoft, and the unsavoury anticompetitive behaviours had been done away with.

	▲	latexr 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> the common sentiment on the forum was that Microsoft of 2010s was not Ballmer’s Microsoft, and the unsavoury anticompetitive behaviours had been done away with. Maybe it was a common sentiment, but clearly not the. Again, we can see from that acquisition thread that people were wary of it. The second top post even makes Microsoft seem like a domestic abuser.