4 ms·

Dude... I literally in the 3rd line said this: "I might be wrong but would love some feedback. It’s an exceedingly complicated topic which has been researched

Dude... I literally in the 3rd line said this: "I might be wrong but would love some feedback. It’s an exceedingly complicated topic which has been researched for hundreds of years so it might be that this observation has been made before." ... so there's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics. Got it!

dvt 7y ago
> ... so there's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics. Got it! I think you're attacking a straw-man here. That's not what I said at all. I also write blog posts on complicated topics, but they are thoroughly researched and generally, though not always, within my purview of expertise. You literally only read the Wikipedia page.
- burtonator 7y ago
  > You literally only read the Wikipedia page. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have NO idea of my background. You don't know what I've read. Do you speak to people like this in person? Common decency goes a long way to further academic discussion.
  - asark 7y ago
    I dunno, the post's some real n-gate bait. > Being that my background is in CompSci I tend to think about thinks in terms of probabilities, statistics, game theory, and distributed systems. Well. OK. But then a bunch of: > This would need to be validated experimentally but I suspect that the probability of cooperation (the opposite of defection) would be inversely proportional to the size of the group. :-| And the whole post is of about that quality. Fine as a "dear diary" I guess but it's very low-value even as an amateur effort.
    - dvt 7y ago
      This is my point, but I’m getting downvoted and buried by the mods so I’m ejecting out of this conversation.
- dang 7y ago
  You've crossed into personal attack, as well as breaking the site guideline that asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Can you please not do that? We all have a bias to dismiss others as idiots on the internet, and it's necessary to consciously discount that in order to have any chance of being fair. Otherwise you end up posting a shallow dismissal while criticizing someone else for being shallow, which improves nothing. If you know more, that's awesome, and in that case you could write a much better comment by teaching the rest of us some of what you know, so we can learn something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I think you're attacking a straw-man here. That's not what I said at all. I also write blog posts on complicated topics, but they are thoroughly researched and generally, though not always, within my purview of expertise. Doesn't seem like he attacked a straw-man. You literally doubled down saying (to sum it up): "There's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics [unless you're an expert of them, like I'm on the topics I write on the internet about]".

dvt 7y ago

> ... so there's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics. Got it! I think you're attacking a straw-man here. That's not what I said at all. I also write blog posts on complicated topics, but they are thoroughly researched and generally, though not always, within my purview of expertise. You literally only read the Wikipedia page.

burtonator 7y ago
> You literally only read the Wikipedia page. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have NO idea of my background. You don't know what I've read. Do you speak to people like this in person? Common decency goes a long way to further academic discussion.
- asark 7y ago
  I dunno, the post's some real n-gate bait. > Being that my background is in CompSci I tend to think about thinks in terms of probabilities, statistics, game theory, and distributed systems. Well. OK. But then a bunch of: > This would need to be validated experimentally but I suspect that the probability of cooperation (the opposite of defection) would be inversely proportional to the size of the group. :-| And the whole post is of about that quality. Fine as a "dear diary" I guess but it's very low-value even as an amateur effort.
  - dvt 7y ago
    This is my point, but I’m getting downvoted and buried by the mods so I’m ejecting out of this conversation.
dang 7y ago
You've crossed into personal attack, as well as breaking the site guideline that asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Can you please not do that? We all have a bias to dismiss others as idiots on the internet, and it's necessary to consciously discount that in order to have any chance of being fair. Otherwise you end up posting a shallow dismissal while criticizing someone else for being shallow, which improves nothing. If you know more, that's awesome, and in that case you could write a much better comment by teaching the rest of us some of what you know, so we can learn something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
coldtea 7y ago
>I think you're attacking a straw-man here. That's not what I said at all. I also write blog posts on complicated topics, but they are thoroughly researched and generally, though not always, within my purview of expertise. Doesn't seem like he attacked a straw-man. You literally doubled down saying (to sum it up): "There's to be NO discussion on the Internet of complicated topics [unless you're an expert of them, like I'm on the topics I write on the internet about]".