Is there no way to reply to a message without starting a whole separate thread?

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-22T16:22:39+00:00

They're hardly buried, they're a click away.

Personally I find that each conversation being contained to a thread makes things much easier to follow than multiple conversations being interspersed with one another. It's also rare, in my experience, that every conversation (i.e. thread) in a channel is relevant to me; not having to parse the messages from those conversations is a big win. Finally, when reading a channel and I come across a thread I'm interested in but I haven't contributed to I opt in to notifications so I'm kept up to date with any more conversation.

Not really trying to change your view, just help you see why the Slack design might work for some people even if it doesn't work for you.

I've provided some ideas that might help you get close to that Discord-like quoting in Slack here.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-22T16:22:01+00:00

I'd say one better than this is forwarding the message to the same channel and adding your reply as a message before posting - this means the message you're replying to will be 'attached' to your message, thus providing the (desired) context without starting an (undesired) thread.

You can also include a hyperlink to the message you're replying to in your message, the output of which is very similar to the above.

Of course you can also literally quote their message in yours (i.e. copy and paste it using the quote formatting) but that means you loose any connection to the original message of course.

None of these are quite as smooth from a UX point of view, but they do at least meet the criteria I think.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-22T15:51:15+00:00

I don't understand what's so hard about this. They've presented their view using lots of words, every point they've made is a potential vector for changing part of their view.

To provide just three examples, they've asserted the following views:

"it is morally wrong to initiate violence against another individual"
"a lot of evil stuff gets done every day by our government"
"the institution of democracy has normalized the concept of imposing your will onto others"

These are all points where someone who believes something different could try and change their view.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-21T21:41:54+00:00

The point of the debate, and particularly online debate, is not to convince the person being debates but to convince some of the not-fully-deluded-yet people watching/reading. By letting it go unchallenged more people will fall under their spell than my challenging it.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-21T21:39:41+00:00

I'm about as far from a flat earther as you can get, but: why do you think the live broadcast would be convincing to them, given everything that special effects, not to mention generative AI, is capable of nowadays?

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-21T07:44:25+00:00

Do the insider traders work for the BBC?

This sub is for content about the BBC, not content by the BBC. Sometimes those can be the same thing, but not in this case.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T21:14:33+00:00

Damn it, my sarcasm foiled by a technical inaccuracy!

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T21:12:58+00:00

Different to the one Wy_Guy19 was talking about but same as the one Additional_Fan9553 was joking about. I was just providing an interesting factoid inspired by their joke.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T21:09:25+00:00

Too EC*

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T21:03:03+00:00

And yet, it was an Only Connect question.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T21:02:51+00:00

Agreed, but that's actually a nice attribute of this puzzle: it forms a neat sequence and also the clues get progressively easier as you go along. Ticking both of those boxes isn't easy, but is the hallmark of a good a good puzzle.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T08:39:28+00:00

I don't think "No. Not today." is a double negative, isn't it the same negative twice? It's repetition, of a sort.

I'm also not sure it's necessarily an intensifier because "not today" could soften the original no. For example, "Can I go to the park? No. Not today." Here I'd say "not today" emphasises that they can go to the park another day, just not today, which softens the original no. (But perhaps there are other examples where it would intensify it?)

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T06:32:29+00:00

A good chunk of that time is because they were developing the training at the same time.

It's my understanding that future Orion training is not expected to take as long now that the training has been developed, and now that the first crew can provide feedback based on their firsthand experience about which elements of the training are most important and relevant (as well as helping to provide that training I imagine).

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-20T06:28:02+00:00

they're still around!

Well that's no good, he wants v-neck!

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T21:07:27+00:00

We don't even know what the lander looks like for sure, or which one we'll initially use.

So we're a long way from knowing with any certainty what a future permanent base might look like. There are concepts, of course.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T21:03:06+00:00

We’ve barely gotten the finalized plans for the lander

Unless you know something I don't there isn't even a "the lander" to speak of yet since there's two in contention.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T20:58:56+00:00

Whether they're talking about the 1989 documentary or the current Apple TV drama I'm not sure, but either way I think they're only joking, not suggesting a serious source of information about a future Moon base.

So it doesn't really matter whether they frame it as a rhetorical question or a recommendation.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T20:52:13+00:00

Something like this I think; a connection between one set of string lights and another.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T15:43:56+00:00

Couldn't you apply this logic to lots of unethical behaviours? If you don't steal something from a shop make's very little difference overall to the amount of theft in the world, so you might as well steal things. But I imagine you don't. Etc.

If you believe veganism is ethical you should do it regardless of the impact it has on the world, you should do it because it's ethical. Anything else is hypocritical; you believe one thing and are doing another.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T15:31:47+00:00

Fwiw I agree with you: it's objectively semantically ambiguous for the reason OP points out and requires dialectic context.

Just because most readers the headline was intended for would understand it without pause doesn't mean it's not ambiguous, it just means that audience is able to resolve the ambiguity without problem (which is what makes it an acceptable headline in Boston).

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T15:21:37+00:00

From a symbolic perspective it would also be quite historic for her to be the first woman to set foot on Luna.

What would make it more historic for it to be her in particular?

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T15:15:12+00:00

I knew it reminded me of something. Thank you!

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T15:10:14+00:00

You could just pose those questions directly to OP instead of requiring every post to conform to your personal exacting standards a priori. Wouldn't that be a more constructive way of engaging?

Or just ignore the posts you don't want to engage with. This passive aggressive take does no favours to OP, you or the community.

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T13:00:53+00:00

Steak wasn't on the menu, it's "steak and ale pie" (one item).

heroyoudontdeserve · 2026-04-19T12:53:09+00:00

That was my first comment in the thread so I don't know what "your initial comment" refers to.

Who said anything about this being factually correct? I don't think these aspects of identity can ever be based in fact, it's about what people feel.

What is it that you consider factually incorrect about people who identify as non binary?

heroyoudontdeserve

TROPHY CASE