4 ms·

That's actually exactly the point the parent poster is making. Ada Lovelace has no direct relation to the Jacquard Loom. She's only related because she worked w

That's actually exactly the point the parent poster is making. Ada Lovelace has no direct relation to the Jacquard Loom. She's only related because she worked with Babbage, and Babbage was mentioned. Both of you are pointing out that Ada/Turing don't need to be mentioned, as it's not an article about general computing, but specifically about the Loom.

greglindahl 8y ago
I'm actually disagreeing with that point, and was doing it by asking a leading question. Turing doesn't appear to have even talked about the Jacquard Loom, while Lovelace did. I consider that to be a direct connection between Lovelace and the loom.
- Someone 8y ago
  There’s a direct connection between greglindahl and the Jacquard loom, too ((s)he wrote about it), but that’s no reason to mention greglindahl in the article. Writers writing about these subjects may ignore non-male protagonists, but for subjects like these, one can only try to show that statistically.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    > greglindahl Call me uncouth, but I don't know who "greglindahl" is...? EDIT: Ok - I have an idea now who "greglindahl" is - but I wasn't able to find any reference to writings about the Jacquard loom? But Lovelace was writing about the Jacquard loom in relation to computation; was greglindahl's writings of the same style - that is, were they in relationship to computation? If not, then of course there'd be no reason to mention that writer. But the fact that Lovelace did write about the context of computation in relation to the loom, makes the idea that she could have been mentioned salient. I'm not arguing that she should have been mentioned, but I can understand how someone could think that might be a worthy addition to the piece.
    - Someone 8y ago
      ”but I can understand how someone could think that might be a worthy addition to the piece.” I can understand that, too, but if, as telesilla did, you write ”How can an entire article about Babbage and the Jacquard loom not mention Ada Lovelace even once?”, I and, I guess, many others, don’t read that as ‘might be a worthy addition’. And I don’t know greglindahl, either, but their comment that I replied to argued that, a) the article wasn’t about the loom, but about general computing, and b) because of that, and because Lovelace wrote about the jacquard loom, she should have been mentioned the moment Babbage got mentioned. That’s the only place I know where greglindahl writes about the loom.

greglindahl 8y ago

I'm actually disagreeing with that point, and was doing it by asking a leading question. Turing doesn't appear to have even talked about the Jacquard Loom, while Lovelace did. I consider that to be a direct connection between Lovelace and the loom.

Someone 8y ago
There’s a direct connection between greglindahl and the Jacquard loom, too ((s)he wrote about it), but that’s no reason to mention greglindahl in the article. Writers writing about these subjects may ignore non-male protagonists, but for subjects like these, one can only try to show that statistically.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > greglindahl Call me uncouth, but I don't know who "greglindahl" is...? EDIT: Ok - I have an idea now who "greglindahl" is - but I wasn't able to find any reference to writings about the Jacquard loom? But Lovelace was writing about the Jacquard loom in relation to computation; was greglindahl's writings of the same style - that is, were they in relationship to computation? If not, then of course there'd be no reason to mention that writer. But the fact that Lovelace did write about the context of computation in relation to the loom, makes the idea that she could have been mentioned salient. I'm not arguing that she should have been mentioned, but I can understand how someone could think that might be a worthy addition to the piece.
  - Someone 8y ago
    ”but I can understand how someone could think that might be a worthy addition to the piece.” I can understand that, too, but if, as telesilla did, you write ”How can an entire article about Babbage and the Jacquard loom not mention Ada Lovelace even once?”, I and, I guess, many others, don’t read that as ‘might be a worthy addition’. And I don’t know greglindahl, either, but their comment that I replied to argued that, a) the article wasn’t about the loom, but about general computing, and b) because of that, and because Lovelace wrote about the jacquard loom, she should have been mentioned the moment Babbage got mentioned. That’s the only place I know where greglindahl writes about the loom.