3 ms·

> No one is said vim is an intuitive UI, or whatever. Yes actually he did say vim is intuitive; don't tell me no one said X when they very well did say X. You

> No one is said vim is an intuitive UI, or whatever. Yes actually he did say vim is intuitive; don't tell me no one said X when they very well did say X. You're failing to understand that I perfectly well understand what he's saying and I'm objecting to the use of the word intuitive; yes, that's semantics which I care about. I don't need to take a step back or look at it another way because I'm not confused by his message, I'm objecting to his vocabulary. If that doesn't interest you, that's fine, move along. But it interests me because I'm pedantic and I enjoy discussing how a message is conveyed as well as just what's being conveyed. Just because you don't care about semantics doesn't mean others don't. Semantics matter if words are to convey meaning and every reply to a post doesn't have to share what you value about the post. If I want to debate the semantics of a word with the OP then I damn well will and it's not your place to come along and tell me I shouldn't, nor tell me I need to see it another way. reply to OP below: As you admit the point is debatable, then you can't question my debating it. I understood your intent as well, so what, I wasn't questioning your intent, I'm questioning your choice of words to convey that intent. So no, I don't.

kartD 10y ago
Actually, you do, when I said " vim is intuitive ( -ish?)", the -ish? is meant to convey the point is debatable and not an objective statement (user joemi and nikki93 understood my intent). I think I was right in saying that, seeing the number of replies to my comment. Edit: funnily enough I added it (the -ish?) 30s after posting because I imagined this scenario, guess I could have been more clear.
kartD 10y ago
If we're being so precise about everything, I'd like to point out that unless there is research that can objectively define and measure what intuitive is (we could still argue even after that) there isn't much of a point in debating the contents of my statement, especially when it acknowledges subjectivity.
nikki93 10y ago
No they said "vim is intuitive, once X." Which is a different statement. It means "X => vim is intuitive," which can also be true when the antecedent (X) is false if going down the material implication route. Here X is "once you understand the characters." I think what's happening is that even if we agree on definitions of intuitive, what I'm trying to add is the context around the "vim is intuitive" statement that it is scoped in. It is scoped by the "... once ..." qualifying fragment after it. Also I'm not really saying what you should or shouldn't do. I'm saying try, because it could be fun; I want to see what happens when you take it there, sort of as a "hmm hey can we try this?" situation. It isn't as much a convincing as a "hey here's how I understand what he said--what do you think of that?" situation. More about going away with things to think about than "cool, I think I'm the person that won this argument." You're welcome to not try this, and I'll walk away, it's totally fine. FWIW I agree that the unqualified "vim is intuitive" wouldn't be reasonable to say. I'm just trying to explore the nuance.

kartD 10y ago

Actually, you do, when I said " vim is intuitive ( -ish?)", the -ish? is meant to convey the point is debatable and not an objective statement (user joemi and nikki93 understood my intent). I think I was right in saying that, seeing the number of replies to my comment. Edit: funnily enough I added it (the -ish?) 30s after posting because I imagined this scenario, guess I could have been more clear.

kartD 10y ago

If we're being so precise about everything, I'd like to point out that unless there is research that can objectively define and measure what intuitive is (we could still argue even after that) there isn't much of a point in debating the contents of my statement, especially when it acknowledges subjectivity.

nikki93 10y ago

No they said "vim is intuitive, once X." Which is a different statement. It means "X => vim is intuitive," which can also be true when the antecedent (X) is false if going down the material implication route. Here X is "once you understand the characters." I think what's happening is that even if we agree on definitions of intuitive, what I'm trying to add is the context around the "vim is intuitive" statement that it is scoped in. It is scoped by the "... once ..." qualifying fragment after it. Also I'm not really saying what you should or shouldn't do. I'm saying try, because it could be fun; I want to see what happens when you take it there, sort of as a "hmm hey can we try this?" situation. It isn't as much a convincing as a "hey here's how I understand what he said--what do you think of that?" situation. More about going away with things to think about than "cool, I think I'm the person that won this argument." You're welcome to not try this, and I'll walk away, it's totally fine. FWIW I agree that the unqualified "vim is intuitive" wouldn't be reasonable to say. I'm just trying to explore the nuance.