6 ms·

Regardless of whether your correct or not, this is still a disrespectful comment. Nevertheless, he's referring to Ada Lovelace's comments from 1843 and saying

by icc97 8y ago

Regardless of whether your correct or not, this is still a disrespectful comment. Nevertheless, he's referring to Ada Lovelace's comments from 1843 and saying they weren't understood for ~100 years i.e. 1940s. That pre-dates most of what you're talking about. In the twitter thread the OP clearly has read up on the history of punched cards and the history of IBM machines.

fragmede 8y ago
In case downvotes on the above confuse others, the comment Animats made is disrespectful but they are not some random Internet commentor, and in Jobsian fashion, disrespect is cool so long as you can back it up (and John Nagle can back it up).
- hycaria 8y ago
  Well I didn't read it as disrespectful, and that's my explanation of the downvotes (which doesn't have any value and that I only offer as a counterpoint here). I have no idea who that poster is, I don't care, and that shouldn't be a factor when considering rudeness tbh. As long as you can back up your reasonable claims and don't attack the person behind the keyboard, what's disrespectful ? Or is arguing considered rude now ?
  - icc97 8y ago
    He's telling the OP to go and read up on various books with the implication that they haven't read anything on the topic. Where as from the twitter thread they clearly have read books on the topics mentioned (IBM and punch cards). From the guidelines: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. I don't think the comment made by Animats meets this guideline.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      I typically say "I recommend" rather than "read".
    - danmaz74 8y ago
      Out of curiosity, if the comment started with "In my opinion that's a misreading of computer history...", with everything else left unchanged, would it still be uncivil in your opinion?
      - icc97 8y ago
        Yes, in my opinion it still would be uncivil as per my above comment: > He's telling the OP to go and read up on various books with the implication that they haven't read anything on the topic. that to me is disrespectful. But the whole tone of the comment was dismissive, so changing the first part makes it less so, but not entirely.
        danmaz74 8y ago
        I see. For me, dismissive is one thing (and I could agree with that), uncivil is something much worse.
    - ckastner 8y ago
      > He's telling the OP to go and read up on various books with the implication that they haven't read anything on the topic. It is possible that OP hasn't read a sufficient amount of books, or read the wrong books, or misunderstood parts of the books he read. The implication you are taking offense to (OP hasn't read books) does not follow from that.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Arguing isn't rude, but phrasing comments as reading assignments somewhat implies ignorance.
- icc97 8y ago
  I'm aware of who Animats is but the OP is also a Princeton Professor of CS. Given that Animats has so much reputation on here, I'd hope he would be more likely to be civil and uphold the guidelines.
  - LMYahooTFY 8y ago
    To be very blunt, this appears so nuanced as to not merit discussion. I wouldn't call it a politely worded comment. That's all.
    - antonvs 8y ago
      The real problem is that Animats' comment is very misguided, so doesn't justify its own tone. This is a case of someone jumping in with both feet and not realizing they're at the wrong pool.
- GuiA 8y ago
  “We are all smart here. Distinguish yourself by being kind”.
Angostura 8y ago
Didn't read as disrespectful at all to me, just a firm rebuttal.
- GuiA 8y ago
  It’s a tad condescending. It asserts authoritatively that is a misreading of computer science history - in history, there is rarely a single “correct reading”, but rather many interpretations that at time reinforce and at times weaken each other. Using the imperative “read”, “learn”, etc is also heavy handed and unnecessary. It’s the kind of language bad teachers - the teachers who have to use their authority rather than mentorship skills - tend to use (“Check out those books for more” flows much better, for instance). As a result, the comment comes a little too much across as “no, you don’t have the knowledge, I have the knowledge!” which is sadly can be a little too common in hacker circles and doesn’t really encourage open, fruitful conversations the way “You know stuff, I know other stuff, let’s put it together and see what we come up with” does.
  - westoncb 8y ago
    > ... in history, there is rarely a single “correct reading”, but rather many interpretations that at time reinforce and at times weaken each other. As I was reading the GP's interpretation of these historical events, it occurred to me how difficult it really is to get at a reliable interpretation of something like this: I've already read a couple books on the subject—but I can see room the cracks so to speak, where the GP's view may be more accurate. That said, difficulty isn't the same as impossibility—and yes, it is technically impossible (or at least meaningless) for certain definitions of 'correct' interpretation, but if you're okay with correct up to "for all intents and purposes"—then it's a non-issue. For instance, in this case there is a pretty definite question we'd like answered: which innovation was the limiting factor on our original development of general purpose computation: increased memory capacity, or theoretical knowledge of general purpose computation—or was their role more alike than different? Depending on how things actually played out, there are definite things you can say about that. For instance, perhaps we need at least 500 bits of memory for general purpose computation—did we have access to that while no one had yet thought to build the general purpose computer because we were still waiting for Zuse, Turing/Church? If so, we answer one way; if not, we answer the other way. The only case where it gets endlessly complicated, perhaps giving apparent grounds for claiming impossibility of correct interpretation, actually fits neatly into the last option I mentioned in the original question statement: that there wasn't a significant difference in the two innovations' roles as limiting factors. It seems valuable to understand the difficult and limits of interpretation, but I think more harm is being done than good speaking so generally of "correct readings" being impossible. > Using the imperative “read”, “learn”, etc is also heavy handed and unnecessary. It’s the kind of language bad teachers - the teachers who have to use their authority rather than mentorship skills - tend to use (“Check out those books for more” flows much better, for instance). I really wish this was better known. It's a pretty consistent pattern and useful to be able to recognize. My read on it is that it's typically used as a defensive strategy—a way to prevent an interlocutor from questioning the speaker any further on the subject.

by icc97 8y ago

fragmede 8y ago

In case downvotes on the above confuse others, the comment Animats made is disrespectful but they are not some random Internet commentor, and in Jobsian fashion, disrespect is cool so long as you can back it up (and John Nagle can back it up).

hycaria 8y ago
Well I didn't read it as disrespectful, and that's my explanation of the downvotes (which doesn't have any value and that I only offer as a counterpoint here). I have no idea who that poster is, I don't care, and that shouldn't be a factor when considering rudeness tbh. As long as you can back up your reasonable claims and don't attack the person behind the keyboard, what's disrespectful ? Or is arguing considered rude now ?
- icc97 8y ago
  He's telling the OP to go and read up on various books with the implication that they haven't read anything on the topic. Where as from the twitter thread they clearly have read books on the topics mentioned (IBM and punch cards). From the guidelines: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. I don't think the comment made by Animats meets this guideline.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I typically say "I recommend" rather than "read".
  - danmaz74 8y ago
    Out of curiosity, if the comment started with "In my opinion that's a misreading of computer history...", with everything else left unchanged, would it still be uncivil in your opinion?
    - icc97 8y ago
      Yes, in my opinion it still would be uncivil as per my above comment: > He's telling the OP to go and read up on various books with the implication that they haven't read anything on the topic. that to me is disrespectful. But the whole tone of the comment was dismissive, so changing the first part makes it less so, but not entirely.
      - danmaz74 8y ago
        I see. For me, dismissive is one thing (and I could agree with that), uncivil is something much worse.
  - ckastner 8y ago
    > He's telling the OP to go and read up on various books with the implication that they haven't read anything on the topic. It is possible that OP hasn't read a sufficient amount of books, or read the wrong books, or misunderstood parts of the books he read. The implication you are taking offense to (OP hasn't read books) does not follow from that.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Arguing isn't rude, but phrasing comments as reading assignments somewhat implies ignorance.
icc97 8y ago
I'm aware of who Animats is but the OP is also a Princeton Professor of CS. Given that Animats has so much reputation on here, I'd hope he would be more likely to be civil and uphold the guidelines.
- LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  To be very blunt, this appears so nuanced as to not merit discussion. I wouldn't call it a politely worded comment. That's all.
  - antonvs 8y ago
    The real problem is that Animats' comment is very misguided, so doesn't justify its own tone. This is a case of someone jumping in with both feet and not realizing they're at the wrong pool.
GuiA 8y ago
“We are all smart here. Distinguish yourself by being kind”.

Angostura 8y ago

Didn't read as disrespectful at all to me, just a firm rebuttal.

GuiA 8y ago
It’s a tad condescending. It asserts authoritatively that is a misreading of computer science history - in history, there is rarely a single “correct reading”, but rather many interpretations that at time reinforce and at times weaken each other. Using the imperative “read”, “learn”, etc is also heavy handed and unnecessary. It’s the kind of language bad teachers - the teachers who have to use their authority rather than mentorship skills - tend to use (“Check out those books for more” flows much better, for instance). As a result, the comment comes a little too much across as “no, you don’t have the knowledge, I have the knowledge!” which is sadly can be a little too common in hacker circles and doesn’t really encourage open, fruitful conversations the way “You know stuff, I know other stuff, let’s put it together and see what we come up with” does.
- westoncb 8y ago
  > ... in history, there is rarely a single “correct reading”, but rather many interpretations that at time reinforce and at times weaken each other. As I was reading the GP's interpretation of these historical events, it occurred to me how difficult it really is to get at a reliable interpretation of something like this: I've already read a couple books on the subject—but I can see room the cracks so to speak, where the GP's view may be more accurate. That said, difficulty isn't the same as impossibility—and yes, it is technically impossible (or at least meaningless) for certain definitions of 'correct' interpretation, but if you're okay with correct up to "for all intents and purposes"—then it's a non-issue. For instance, in this case there is a pretty definite question we'd like answered: which innovation was the limiting factor on our original development of general purpose computation: increased memory capacity, or theoretical knowledge of general purpose computation—or was their role more alike than different? Depending on how things actually played out, there are definite things you can say about that. For instance, perhaps we need at least 500 bits of memory for general purpose computation—did we have access to that while no one had yet thought to build the general purpose computer because we were still waiting for Zuse, Turing/Church? If so, we answer one way; if not, we answer the other way. The only case where it gets endlessly complicated, perhaps giving apparent grounds for claiming impossibility of correct interpretation, actually fits neatly into the last option I mentioned in the original question statement: that there wasn't a significant difference in the two innovations' roles as limiting factors. It seems valuable to understand the difficult and limits of interpretation, but I think more harm is being done than good speaking so generally of "correct readings" being impossible. > Using the imperative “read”, “learn”, etc is also heavy handed and unnecessary. It’s the kind of language bad teachers - the teachers who have to use their authority rather than mentorship skills - tend to use (“Check out those books for more” flows much better, for instance). I really wish this was better known. It's a pretty consistent pattern and useful to be able to recognize. My read on it is that it's typically used as a defensive strategy—a way to prevent an interlocutor from questioning the speaker any further on the subject.