That's the thing though, it was voluntary.

If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day.

I get that dealing with low quality questions wasn't great, but imagine spending an afternoon researching a weird thing using some tools your organization mandates, writing it up, only for that person to skim it and just assume you really wanted to do $otherThing.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day.

That frustration is likely part of the decline, yes.

▲

StableAlkyne 5 hours ago | parent [-]

And also part of the decline from the asker side, once a less abrasive alternative became available

	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Again: the "less abrasive alternative" is built off the labor and knowledge of those abrasive folks. They're a large part of the reason it knows what to less-abrasively suggest.

▲

TeMPOraL 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This. And it's even starting to be a problem with LLMs - noticed that with Claude and Gemini this week.

Yes, I am specifically asking if it's possible to do X with Y. No, I'm not interested in how to do ${unrelated except for name} thing A with Y, or ${manual variant of X} by hand to ${subset of Y}, nor do I want to use tool Q instead. I specifically want to know how to do X with Y, for reasons that are my own and borne of frustration with Y being a toy I'm trying to use for productive work, which apparently means pushing it past its operational envelope, but I have a deadline...