A lot of programmers I know could really learn from the "social rules" on this page. There's no need to try to prove oneself to be the smartest in the room on every topic. It takes a lot more balls to say "wow, I really can't even remember whether the syntax was X->Y() or X.Y()!"
The "well-actually" problem is particularly rampant on HN.
Agreed. Likewise, the feigning surprise one is a common problem in real-world conversations. I am guilty of it too, and have been trying to break the habit for the past few months. I always feel bad whenever I slip up, so it's nice to see it codified as poor etiquette here.
They're a large part of why I've almost entirely stopped reading comments on HN. Too many people more interested in being right than having an actual discussion.
in a 3 person private conversation, a factual inaccuracy that is not central to the point isn't going to harm the participants. Online, the conversation is public. People who don't know what they're talking about should be politely called out before they stir up FUD or otherwise cause harm.
I think the focus is on pedantic corrections that are entirely irrelevant to the discussion and serve only to make the commenter feel superior. For example, see this recent thread [1].
The first commenter proposes a device that would use a Molex connector. The second points out that the device needs to interface with a wire not found on the Molex 8981 connector, a useful correction. The third makes the inane observation that Molex the company makes many connectors, when it is obvious that the first two commenters were referring to the Molex 8981 connector specifically.
What is the problem with "well-actually" especially in online environment?
I can understand "This is especially annoying when the correction has no bearing on the actual conversation." case in a face-to-face conversation but the manual forbids all corrections whether they are essential to the discussion or not. Or should the rule be interpreted as: essential corrections are allowed but the literal phrase "well, actually" is forbidden?
If someone says if X then Y; you should be allowed to say: actually X' and therefore Z i.e., a subtle imprecision in the premise might lead to the big difference in outcomes.
Otherwise technical discussion degrades to a smalltalk.
The purpose of "no well-actually's" isn't to curtail accurate and precise technical conversation, which would obviously be problematic for creating an environment where people can become great programmers. This is why we state in the manual that "This doesn't mean Hacker School isn't about truth-seeking or that we don't care about being precise." In practice, I don't think the problem you're pointing out has ever been an issue.
But it doesn't - in the online environment of Hacker News.
A good well-actually here often adds a lot to the discussion: it brings up points that others may have forgotten, elaborates on concepts that can be very complex, points the anonymous reader toward other resources that they may never have heard of, and can lend validation and social proof to ideas. And the negatives are curtailed by the short, high-population, transactional nature of message boards. When someone corrects you on Hacker News, it doesn't make you feel stupid (I hope): it just means that someone out there, among the hundreds of thousands of readers, had better information than you did. There's no real jockeying for social status on Hacker News, because if you get karma or score that point - who cares? You never see them again.
That's very different from a school environment, where you are pushing your comfort zone in front of a small number of classmates, and a correction can make you feel stupid and negatively impact your confidence. You have to learn with these people for a while; if you feel devalued from the beginning, your learning is going to suffer.
The "well-actually" problem is particularly rampant on HN.