3 ms·

> The parent comment explicitly stated an assumption of both incompetence and prejudice and I responded directly to that. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you sai

> The parent comment explicitly stated an assumption of both incompetence and prejudice and I responded directly to that. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said. You started the paragraph referring to the top level comment, which is me. I took the "you're" in "You’re assuming incompetence when you could just go look it up." to be a general "you", and commentary on my original comment. > From the HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." I actually looked this up before the GP comment, and almost included it myself. I can see now that you were implicating the comment you replied to. I didn't think that was the case, because I apparently didn't interpret that comment remotely in the same way you did. > Perhaps it was a mistake. That might mean it was nothing more than an oversight that already got fixed. It doesn't mean there is any other coloring of the study at all, nor that there was any intention or agenda to make TypeScript look bad, right? I never implied it was. For that matter, I didn't really interpret the comment in question as stating that either. The more charitable interpretation is not that they are trying to make another language look bad, but that they are trying to make their favorite language look good. That doesn't require purposefully tanking one benchmark, it just requires them to be much better versed in optimizing one language than another and a lack of awareness about this. As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. In fact, if you read the comment carefully, they even call out to this with the "not necessarily malice" remark.

dahart 8y ago
> The more charitable interpretation is not that they are trying to make another language look bad, but that they are trying to make their favorite language look good. The project doesn’t talk about favorites or seem to want to make certain languages look good. Jumping to the conclusion that bias is involved isn’t the good faith interpretation, even if you state with a positive sounding framing. The good faith interpretation is to take the stated project goals at face value, and assume that the participants have done a good job.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > The project doesn’t talk about favorites or seem to want to make certain languages look good. Jumping to the conclusion that bias is involved isn’t the good faith interpretation I didn't see anywhere that the comment in question called any project bias into question, but instead noted that in a situation where work is crowd sourced, people with their own intentions and motivations will put out bad benchmarks, either in the case of the benchmarks game, or a specific benchmark or comparison put forth in an article or blog. I've personally been witness to the latter multiple times just from HN submissions. I just want to end with, as someone that's brought up viewing comments in an uncharitable light, you seem to have done a lot of that in this discussion. You've repeatedly taken your interpretation of a comment, rephrased it in a harsher way, and the stated it as what the other person was saying as fact, and then responded to that. I would think actually trying to find a charitable interpretation should at least include a question at the beginning to confirm whether what you think is being said is entirely correct. Note that I started with that when I thought you were attributing statements to me that I did not say. My first words were a solicitation "What are you talking about? Where did that happen?" to confirm what was going on. You've been doing this from your first response to my top level commend, when you stated "But you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific." That's a very uncharitable rephrasing of what you think I was doing, and it certainly wasn't my intention. I've already outlines in specific exactly what I was trying to do and why, and in doing so I also stated that I felt you were misinterpreting me. There's a clear trend here as I see it, and you repeatedly bringing up good faith assumptions just puts it into clear highlight. I think we've covered about all there is to say on this (these) topics. I'll let you have to the last word if you wish. I'll read and promise to consider any points you raise, but I don't think me responding would be very fruitful, and this discussion has digressed far enough.

dahart 8y ago

> The more charitable interpretation is not that they are trying to make another language look bad, but that they are trying to make their favorite language look good. The project doesn’t talk about favorites or seem to want to make certain languages look good. Jumping to the conclusion that bias is involved isn’t the good faith interpretation, even if you state with a positive sounding framing. The good faith interpretation is to take the stated project goals at face value, and assume that the participants have done a good job.

kbenson 8y ago
> The project doesn’t talk about favorites or seem to want to make certain languages look good. Jumping to the conclusion that bias is involved isn’t the good faith interpretation I didn't see anywhere that the comment in question called any project bias into question, but instead noted that in a situation where work is crowd sourced, people with their own intentions and motivations will put out bad benchmarks, either in the case of the benchmarks game, or a specific benchmark or comparison put forth in an article or blog. I've personally been witness to the latter multiple times just from HN submissions. I just want to end with, as someone that's brought up viewing comments in an uncharitable light, you seem to have done a lot of that in this discussion. You've repeatedly taken your interpretation of a comment, rephrased it in a harsher way, and the stated it as what the other person was saying as fact, and then responded to that. I would think actually trying to find a charitable interpretation should at least include a question at the beginning to confirm whether what you think is being said is entirely correct. Note that I started with that when I thought you were attributing statements to me that I did not say. My first words were a solicitation "What are you talking about? Where did that happen?" to confirm what was going on. You've been doing this from your first response to my top level commend, when you stated "But you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific." That's a very uncharitable rephrasing of what you think I was doing, and it certainly wasn't my intention. I've already outlines in specific exactly what I was trying to do and why, and in doing so I also stated that I felt you were misinterpreting me. There's a clear trend here as I see it, and you repeatedly bringing up good faith assumptions just puts it into clear highlight. I think we've covered about all there is to say on this (these) topics. I'll let you have to the last word if you wish. I'll read and promise to consider any points you raise, but I don't think me responding would be very fruitful, and this discussion has digressed far enough.