4 ms·

That doesn't mean anything, though. "Some people who do X also do Y" does not imply that "people who do Y are qualified to comment on X." For example: Elon Mus

That doesn't mean anything, though. "Some people who do X also do Y" does not imply that "people who do Y are qualified to comment on X." For example: Elon Musk is a Twitter user. I too am a Twitter user. So's Kylie Jenner, Donald Trump, and random spambots. Using the same service does not mean they're equally qualified to speak with authority about the same things.

agilo 10y ago
Being a 'random person' or a Twitter user should have no bearing on the merit of one's arguments.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  That was the point
ben174 10y ago
Correct. That's why I said "to be fair". I'm saying the playing field is quite level, so we shouldn't judge a comment on whether we recognize their username, but rather on quality of content.
- visakanv 10y ago
  > we shouldn't judge a comment on whether we recognize their username, but rather on quality of content Ah right, I think I see the nature of our disagreement / misunderstanding. I totally agree with you on the general principle that quality of content should be allowed to stand on its own. However, I believe that there are things that are context-specific things that the men and women in the arena will face. And these are things that those of us in the stands, however thoughtful and discerning, will never be able to appreciate them, because we simply do not know. (For a great read about this, check out Daniel Ellsberg's message to Henry Kissinger, on the reality of having access to top secret information: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...) So for example. It seems obvious to me that the top comment is sensible and correct. Snap's CTO or whoever else made that decision is surely very familiar with the costs of being dependent on something like Google. So if they decide to do it anyway, I'm of the opinion that they're quite likely to have done it because of concerns that I am not able to appreciate, because I am not in their context. Of course, there's a non-zero chance that Snap is making stupid decisions. But I think it's far likelier that they're making decisions that SEEM stupid to a 3rd party, but make perfect sense once you appreciate their context. I could be wrong about this, of course.
  - hluska 10y ago
    I don't think you're wrong, but I'd like to point out something. Armchairing decisions like this is a wonderful learning tool. Not only does it give people the opportunity to mentally work through issues that most of us will never face in our careers, but it's a wonderful opportunity to practice diplomatic, yet persuasive writing. You're right, we don't know everything that has gone into a decision, but that's part of the value of an exercise like this. Being able to debate about something, remain civil and deal with specific arguments is an incredibly valuable skill that only gets more valuable as you age.
return0 10y ago
If both x and y are true for a person then he is definitely qualified.

agilo 10y ago

Being a 'random person' or a Twitter user should have no bearing on the merit of one's arguments.

brianwawok 10y ago
That was the point

ben174 10y ago

Correct. That's why I said "to be fair". I'm saying the playing field is quite level, so we shouldn't judge a comment on whether we recognize their username, but rather on quality of content.

visakanv 10y ago
> we shouldn't judge a comment on whether we recognize their username, but rather on quality of content Ah right, I think I see the nature of our disagreement / misunderstanding. I totally agree with you on the general principle that quality of content should be allowed to stand on its own. However, I believe that there are things that are context-specific things that the men and women in the arena will face. And these are things that those of us in the stands, however thoughtful and discerning, will never be able to appreciate them, because we simply do not know. (For a great read about this, check out Daniel Ellsberg's message to Henry Kissinger, on the reality of having access to top secret information: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...) So for example. It seems obvious to me that the top comment is sensible and correct. Snap's CTO or whoever else made that decision is surely very familiar with the costs of being dependent on something like Google. So if they decide to do it anyway, I'm of the opinion that they're quite likely to have done it because of concerns that I am not able to appreciate, because I am not in their context. Of course, there's a non-zero chance that Snap is making stupid decisions. But I think it's far likelier that they're making decisions that SEEM stupid to a 3rd party, but make perfect sense once you appreciate their context. I could be wrong about this, of course.
- hluska 10y ago
  I don't think you're wrong, but I'd like to point out something. Armchairing decisions like this is a wonderful learning tool. Not only does it give people the opportunity to mentally work through issues that most of us will never face in our careers, but it's a wonderful opportunity to practice diplomatic, yet persuasive writing. You're right, we don't know everything that has gone into a decision, but that's part of the value of an exercise like this. Being able to debate about something, remain civil and deal with specific arguments is an incredibly valuable skill that only gets more valuable as you age.

return0 10y ago

If both x and y are true for a person then he is definitely qualified.