3 ms·
> I'm not sure why you'd assume the person who left was on the right just because they disagreed with the direction LLVM was taking. Bayesian priors.
by danharaj 9y ago
> I'm not sure why you'd assume the person who left was on the right just because they disagreed with the direction LLVM was taking.
Bayesian priors.
- naasking 9y agoBayesian priors would also suggest that certain minorities are more likely to be criminals. Should we therefore treat people from such minorities as criminals? Bayesian priors don't guide all of our ethics. My Bayesian priors suggest that the OP wanted an easy way to dismiss the person's concerns without addressing them.
- danharaj 9y agoI think having an expectation about someone's further political beliefs based on information about some of their political beliefs is a little less unethical than presuming criminality, my friend. But you're right tho, I think it's easier to cut out the middle man and dismiss his concerns because I think his concerns are shit, regardless of his other politics.
- forgottenpass 9y ago>Bayesian priors. Is your point anything more than saying "political stereotyping" using verbiage that suggests you agree with the assessment? Even my attempt to find lay-person verbiage for your idea ("stereotyping") found words that carry a negative connotation.
- danharaj 9y agoI cannot parse your verbiage.
- forgottenpass 9y agoI'm implying your showy language classed up an idea that that people would be more likley to dismiss on it's face if described plainly. I've attempted an edit for clarity.
- danharaj 9y agoWell, my choice of words was tongue in cheek, haha only serious, but also knowing my crowd. Bayesian inference is a popular almost-meme on HN which I thought made my terse flippancy more amusing.