2 ms·
> I actually upvoted you, for the record. That's why I said "you and my downvoters", rather than "you and my other downvoters". I am apparently very bad at ma
by mbrutsch 10y ago
> I actually upvoted you, for the record.
That's why I said "you and my downvoters", rather than "you and my other downvoters". I am apparently very bad at making simple points.
> But you drew a distinction between "in-house standards" and "the framework's standards"
One is used in-house for all things relevant, one applies to a framework. In that, they are distinct.
> (which are by definition probably taken from widely adopted standards).
Probably.
> If you were implying that those two things might be identical then you did a bad job of conveying that.
sigh. Two things can be true at the same time. I give up.
- sbarre 10y agoIt's always possible to craft an anecdotal argument to disprove a generalized statement. We were obviously dealing in apples and oranges here.. I was making a generalized statement that likely applies to a large number of places (but indeed not all places), and you were providing a specific but not really comparable counter-point in return. So yes, we were both right, but then again I ask "why reply?" if you're not replying in a similar context. That's like me saying "the oceans are vast and dangerous" and you saying "but a pond is relatively safe"... You're technically correct, but what does it have to do with my initial statement?