The grandparent comment comes from a pseudonym linked to no evaluable projects. It offers a costless, totally-generic pooh-poohing of a real project as "too ambitious". But that project is actually shipping code that works, with 126 contributors, many with a known history of contributions in related spheres.
Against that, the comment even uses an appeal to "HN standards"! As if, we should all be discounting this sort of stuff, on its face.
I'd prefer "HN standards" encourage such ambition, backed with code – not casually mock it with a ascii-smiley.
I get that this is more than just vaporware, but getting past the vaporware stage doesn't necessarily prove that something isn't too ambitious. When something is attempting to enact a paradigm shift, the final goal is adoption/usage, not just a working/functional product.
"Too ambitious" implies someone shouldn't even be trying for this goal. That's a corrosive attitude, and I'd like it kept-in-check by a requirement that sources of such negativity show their reasoning/experience/work.
X < Y => "oh, so X is always zero, huh?"
This smacks of privilege. Not everyone is or can be in a position to pursue ambitious projects. To say that these people should be barred from commentary is ridiculous.
Rather, if you want to dump generic negativity on a real, delivering project, you should justify why your negativity is relevant, for example by documenting your own related efforts.
If you want your cynicism to be respected, then yes, that's a privilege that needs to be earned. You can always say it, but it should be called-out as empty bullshit until backed with detailed reasoning or experience.
