3 ms·

>RL: Generally, some of the things that had to do with biology were a little frightening, things like synthetic biology where you don't really know the ultimate

by gt_ 9y ago

>RL: Generally, some of the things that had to do with biology were a little frightening, things like synthetic biology where you don't really know the ultimate implications. And some of the work with electromagnetics was a little scary, particularly as it had to do with humans and lethality. TH: Got it. So you spent some time in the private sector, and … Got it? Really? Am I alone in having nothing but questions in my mind after such a briefing? Sure, the interview must go on, but the lack of precision in this “got it” is disturbing to me. I have noticed this phrase being use in some loose ways lately. Am I being too sensitive?

ams6110 9y ago
Seems pretty clear to me that he was not in a position to offer any specifics. Probably due to NDA or national security yada yada yada.
- gt_ 9y ago
  My comment concerns the interviewer's "Got it" response, not the interviewee's lack of information. I immediately considered what you're saying, but I wonder if it justifies the affirmative response. Your assumption is merely contextually reasonable. It is not implied and not 'clear'. I think it's becoming accepted to say "got it" when a conveyance is understood even when the conveyance remains between the lines. The result is a confirmation of one of two meanings, and no telling which one it is. It's a lot worse when the only value is to be snarky. I've seen both result in dysfunction, though. I think I prefer sincerity.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    Well, it says in the article "here is a lightly edited transcript of our discussion". The actual raw transcript was probably more like: TH: Interesting, can you tell me some more about what worries you most here? RL: I'm afraid I can't share any more details. Let's move on. TH: So you spent some time in the private sector, and … where the first part was edited into Got it.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  Seems likely that he was referring to this, further on in the interview: > ...battlefield weapons that incorporate microwaves and things like directed energy beams.

by gt_ 9y ago

ams6110 9y ago

Seems pretty clear to me that he was not in a position to offer any specifics. Probably due to NDA or national security yada yada yada.

gt_ 9y ago
My comment concerns the interviewer's "Got it" response, not the interviewee's lack of information. I immediately considered what you're saying, but I wonder if it justifies the affirmative response. Your assumption is merely contextually reasonable. It is not implied and not 'clear'. I think it's becoming accepted to say "got it" when a conveyance is understood even when the conveyance remains between the lines. The result is a confirmation of one of two meanings, and no telling which one it is. It's a lot worse when the only value is to be snarky. I've seen both result in dysfunction, though. I think I prefer sincerity.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  Well, it says in the article "here is a lightly edited transcript of our discussion". The actual raw transcript was probably more like: TH: Interesting, can you tell me some more about what worries you most here? RL: I'm afraid I can't share any more details. Let's move on. TH: So you spent some time in the private sector, and … where the first part was edited into Got it.
AlexCoventry 9y ago
Seems likely that he was referring to this, further on in the interview: > ...battlefield weapons that incorporate microwaves and things like directed energy beams.