> This one is exclusively for unreleased products.

What? This is so obviously incorrect that I'm not even sure how to respond to it.

I’m sure you can figure it out if you try. I maybe was overexpressive with “exclusive”, that was my mistake. Wrapping thoughts in words is lossy and generally making an effort to be understood implies the listener making an effort to understand, yes?

If you were to anticipate a failure for a soon to launch product, it is entirely appropriate to say “dead on arrival”. A similar metaphor might be calling the product “stillborn”.

▲

caconym_ a day ago | parent [-]

> If you were to anticipate a failure for a soon to launch product, it is entirely appropriate to say “dead on arrival”. A similar metaphor might be calling the product “stillborn”.

Okay, but the commenter I replied to said neither of those things. They didn't say "it'll be DOA", or even "it's DOA", but rather "killed this product on arrival". Despite my previous knowledge of the "dead on arrival" idiom, I found this particular wording strange due to its use of past tense, so I wrote a comment expressing that.

If you disagree, that's fine, but you've chosen an extraordinarily unproductive way to express that disagreement.

▲

powersurge360 a day ago | parent [-]

I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to come off as adversarial. I don’t feel like you have to get words exactly right to communicate. There’s lots of folks on hacker news and sometimes, for some reason or another, folks just don’t know an idiom, so I thought I’d point it out. Appreciate ya and I hope you have a good week!

	▲	caconym_ 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough. I'm afraid my adversariality heuristic sometimes yields false positives...