2 ms·

> "terrible", "junk" and "garbage" is not a good faith critique Fair enough. But the you asked why I felt that way, and then I am trying to explain in good fai

by fargle 7y ago

> "terrible", "junk" and "garbage" is not a good faith critique Fair enough. But the you asked why I felt that way, and then I am trying to explain in good faith. There is no need to get cross.

brazzy 7y ago
We're both doing our share of getting cross at the other's trying to explain something in good faith here...
- fargle 7y ago
  I'm not cross. I'm disappointed. I naively hoped you'd at least hear some criticism. What I learn is that you imagine that I don't understand (I do), don't know (I do) and it reflects badly for me to criticice. You come across as a narcissist of the first order. Your website provides little value, possibly negative. It is a hard to follow and a dumbed-down version of famous paper. When I point it out you "prove me wrong" and claim I've not made my points.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    > I naively hoped you'd at least hear some criticism. You have still failed to provide any real criticism other than of what version of the Goldberg paper I used. > What I learn is that you imagine that I don't understand (I do), don't know (I do) You have proven pretty conclusively that no, you don't. > You come across as a narcissist of the first order. Because I defend something that I received praise for many times and am proud of against destructive and unreasonable criticism? No, a narcissist is what you are, with your constant, arrogant disparaging of everything that doesn't follow academic ceremony. > Your website provides little value, possibly negative. In your very subjective opinion that disagrees with pretty much everyone else. > It is a hard to follow Almost everyone else who has looked at it has in fact stated that it's very easy to understand. Looks like it's you who has a problem here. > and a dumbed-down version of famous paper. The website is not, nor does it claim to be a "version" of that paper. > When I point it out you "prove me wrong" and claim I've not made my points. Yes, that is what you have indeed consistently failed to do,
    - fargle 7y ago
      Here's an example of exactly how this subject should be handled. In fact, he even explains why he chose to change the title. You should check out: https://blog.reverberate.org/2014/09/what-every-computer-programmer-should.html https://blog.reverberate.org/2014/09/what-every-computer-pro... Then please read some articles along the lines of: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/When-to-listen-to-inconvenient-criticism http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc... Then continue, please do, to minimize, deflect, play pedant, and outright ignore any criticism. No, you do not get to insist that the critique meet your haughty high minded standards of evidence and proof. I don't need to prove why I consider your work amateurish. It has been an interesting expose into just why your website is what I consider amateurish junk. It is very unlikely that you're going to be able to learn very much of anything, which explains a lot about how it got that way. I get it. You are a "programmer". You've earned that distinction by "programming" things, not by understanding them. And I find it especially awesome that in your hyper-competence, you deem it necessary to guide the entire community of people who don't understand things to a whole new way of not understanding floating point. Well, no harm done. You're theory is that they couldn't understand it anyway. So if this website's audience is people like you, I suppose it's fine. Just please don't do any programming that involves numbers or correctness.

by fargle 7y ago

> "terrible", "junk" and "garbage" is not a good faith critique Fair enough. But the you asked why I felt that way, and then I am trying to explain in good faith. There is no need to get cross.

brazzy 7y ago

We're both doing our share of getting cross at the other's trying to explain something in good faith here...

fargle 7y ago
I'm not cross. I'm disappointed. I naively hoped you'd at least hear some criticism. What I learn is that you imagine that I don't understand (I do), don't know (I do) and it reflects badly for me to criticice. You come across as a narcissist of the first order. Your website provides little value, possibly negative. It is a hard to follow and a dumbed-down version of famous paper. When I point it out you "prove me wrong" and claim I've not made my points.
- brazzy 7y ago
  > I naively hoped you'd at least hear some criticism. You have still failed to provide any real criticism other than of what version of the Goldberg paper I used. > What I learn is that you imagine that I don't understand (I do), don't know (I do) You have proven pretty conclusively that no, you don't. > You come across as a narcissist of the first order. Because I defend something that I received praise for many times and am proud of against destructive and unreasonable criticism? No, a narcissist is what you are, with your constant, arrogant disparaging of everything that doesn't follow academic ceremony. > Your website provides little value, possibly negative. In your very subjective opinion that disagrees with pretty much everyone else. > It is a hard to follow Almost everyone else who has looked at it has in fact stated that it's very easy to understand. Looks like it's you who has a problem here. > and a dumbed-down version of famous paper. The website is not, nor does it claim to be a "version" of that paper. > When I point it out you "prove me wrong" and claim I've not made my points. Yes, that is what you have indeed consistently failed to do,
  - fargle 7y ago
    Here's an example of exactly how this subject should be handled. In fact, he even explains why he chose to change the title. You should check out: https://blog.reverberate.org/2014/09/what-every-computer-programmer-should.html https://blog.reverberate.org/2014/09/what-every-computer-pro... Then please read some articles along the lines of: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/When-to-listen-to-inconvenient-criticism http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc... Then continue, please do, to minimize, deflect, play pedant, and outright ignore any criticism. No, you do not get to insist that the critique meet your haughty high minded standards of evidence and proof. I don't need to prove why I consider your work amateurish. It has been an interesting expose into just why your website is what I consider amateurish junk. It is very unlikely that you're going to be able to learn very much of anything, which explains a lot about how it got that way. I get it. You are a "programmer". You've earned that distinction by "programming" things, not by understanding them. And I find it especially awesome that in your hyper-competence, you deem it necessary to guide the entire community of people who don't understand things to a whole new way of not understanding floating point. Well, no harm done. You're theory is that they couldn't understand it anyway. So if this website's audience is people like you, I suppose it's fine. Just please don't do any programming that involves numbers or correctness.