6 ms·

You're not using the term "crying wolf" correctly[1]. It has a very specific meaning in English, and that is what my complaint is in relation to. No amount of p

by cyphar 9y ago

You're not using the term "crying wolf" correctly[1]. It has a very specific meaning in English, and that is what my complaint is in relation to. No amount of personal derision about how I "lack the level of abstraction capabilities" (whatever that means) will change that you are using the phrase incorrectly. I even specifically said that I agree that we need less difficult personalities in kernel development. It's quite ironic that you then followed up the way you did. [1]: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cry_wolf https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cry_wolf

dkarapetyan 9y ago
Let me break it down for you with all the necessary substitutions > (idiomatic) To raise a false alarm; to constantly warn others about an imagined threat, thereby failing to get assistance when a real threat appears. The imagined threat is the level of quality in patches. He consistently raises false alarms about the quality of patches. The false part being the absolute terms he uses about the character of the people that proposed the patches. Calling someone an infantile moron qualifies as falsehood in my book and counts as raising a false alarm. Now that he is complaining about grsecurity I'm not inclined to listen because the level of alarm he has used previously has been incommensurate with reality, as in he has said "here is a wolf" (this patch is the worst thing ever and the person that wrote it is a moron) when in reality there was no wolf (patch was actually fine and the person was not a moron). Less alarmism would have helped everyone involved get along better and make a more secure kernel. Instead I'm arguing about how comparing his alarmism to crying wolf is or isn't idiomatic. FML
- qb45 9y ago
  > The imagined threat is the level of quality in patches. No, it often is a real threat. > The false part being the absolute terms he uses about the character of the people that proposed the patches. So feel free to disregard his opinions about the characters of other people, but don't be surprised that barely anyone treats you seriously when you suggest that the above somehow invalidates his technical analyses. > Now that he is complaining about grsecurity I'm not inclined to listen Which is fine because it's clearly not your job.
watwut 9y ago
His point about desensitisation of audience stands whether cry wolf in English is limited or not. It was also quite clear from original comment.
- qb45 9y ago
  > desensitisation of audience This is probably a good thing. No idea why random people on the Internet get so upset every time some piece garbage is being called out ;)
  - watwut 9y ago
    It is fundamentally dishonest and emotional argument, not rational one. I hate hypocrisy in that.

by cyphar 9y ago

dkarapetyan 9y ago

Let me break it down for you with all the necessary substitutions > (idiomatic) To raise a false alarm; to constantly warn others about an imagined threat, thereby failing to get assistance when a real threat appears. The imagined threat is the level of quality in patches. He consistently raises false alarms about the quality of patches. The false part being the absolute terms he uses about the character of the people that proposed the patches. Calling someone an infantile moron qualifies as falsehood in my book and counts as raising a false alarm. Now that he is complaining about grsecurity I'm not inclined to listen because the level of alarm he has used previously has been incommensurate with reality, as in he has said "here is a wolf" (this patch is the worst thing ever and the person that wrote it is a moron) when in reality there was no wolf (patch was actually fine and the person was not a moron). Less alarmism would have helped everyone involved get along better and make a more secure kernel. Instead I'm arguing about how comparing his alarmism to crying wolf is or isn't idiomatic. FML

qb45 9y ago
> The imagined threat is the level of quality in patches. No, it often is a real threat. > The false part being the absolute terms he uses about the character of the people that proposed the patches. So feel free to disregard his opinions about the characters of other people, but don't be surprised that barely anyone treats you seriously when you suggest that the above somehow invalidates his technical analyses. > Now that he is complaining about grsecurity I'm not inclined to listen Which is fine because it's clearly not your job.

watwut 9y ago

His point about desensitisation of audience stands whether cry wolf in English is limited or not. It was also quite clear from original comment.

qb45 9y ago
> desensitisation of audience This is probably a good thing. No idea why random people on the Internet get so upset every time some piece garbage is being called out ;)
- watwut 9y ago
  It is fundamentally dishonest and emotional argument, not rational one. I hate hypocrisy in that.