3 ms·

Yeah, but in that case you can get the requirements, right? That's what is not clear to me here. And you did not clarify either. Why is that if you make it seem

by pezo1919 7y ago

Yeah, but in that case you can get the requirements, right? That's what is not clear to me here. And you did not clarify either. Why is that if you make it seem so simple?

RangerScience 7y ago
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you're saying on a grammatical level. Can you rephrase?
- pezo1919 7y ago
  Yeah, sorry, edited: I omitted the word "get"
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - RangerScience 7y ago
    Thanks! Hmm. I tried to answer but I'm still finding it unclear. Can you rephrase with less abstraction and more verbose specifics? Edit: It might not clear what I'm not finding clear. It's not clear to me who you're referring to in the first sentence, or what "get" means in "get the requirements", or what you're referring to when you say "the requirements". It's not clear to me what the "that" is in "that's what's not clear to me". I don't understand what you thought I should have clarified but didn't. I'm not sure even how to begin approaching your last sentence. I really do think that a more verbose rephrase would resolve all these.
    - pezo1919 7y ago
      "At least part of it is the same reason you might want to hang out with people already skilled in your disciplines: you get to go do the advanced stuff, instead of getting the other people up to speed." In that case you can give "requirements" what is needed to work with you in your tempo, right? What the discussion is about (at least to me) is not about the right of picking your people to go together with (ofc you can do that) but about the specific, concrete "requirements" which the "new platform" implements but HN does not.
      - RangerScience 7y ago
        Thanks! > In that case you can give "requirements" what is needed to work with you in your tempo, right? This part is clear. Yes. I would give those requirements, although probably not with term - not like it's a job interview or something. > What the discussion is about (at least to me) This is clear. > is not about the right of picking your people to go together with This is not clear? It's a very convoluted sentence. > but about the specific, concrete "requirements" This is mostly clear. What do you see as the requirements being implemented by the new platform?
        pezo1919 7y ago
        "What do you see as the requirements being implemented by the new platform?" Yes, that should be my question for you! :)
RangerScience 7y ago
(See branch for clarity) What I think you're saying is that the requirements don't make sense to you, or that they bother you because you're thinking that they're not requirements you can meet. IMO, you can at least meet the requirements in spirit. AFAIK / IMO, most groups that defined themselves as for X or Y group are mostly doing two things: 1) They want to center the conversations around topics not normally in the center 2) They want to avoid issues that people from outside the group commonly have 2b) They want to avoid issues that people from outside the group commonly have when interacting people from inside the group. #1 is pretty normal and maps well onto any group defined by common experiences. You succeed or fail at this pretty much the way you succeed or fail in any group. Join a ham radio group to talk about not ham radio, and when you don't have any interest in learning more about ham radio? Yeah. Good way to do this on the 'net is to lurk. #2 is a a lot subtler and harder to hear, particularly when you're likely to have those common issues. Some of them are just communication styles: Ever seen a group of guys excitedly discuss something? Interruptions are the norm. Some are massively problematic even if they're rare, like harassment. Or situation specific, like asking the group to teach you enough for #1. Some groups like to educate newcomers so they can do #1, others just want to do #1 without that. Resolving #1 takes learning, but resolving #2 takes training, and facing hard things. Both of these are resolvable through dedicated work. Go learn enough about the group that you have something worthwhile to add for #1, go learn enough about yourself and that group so you know what the common issues are, take a hard look at yourself to understand which you have, and then train yourself so you can avoid them. Most groups (IMO) that define themselves as for A, and/or for excluding B, are doing so to save time, effort and risk. It's a cheap and reliable way to achieve #1 and #2.
- pezo1919 7y ago
  "What I think you're saying is that the requirements don't make sense to you, or that they bother you because you're thinking that they're not requirements you can meet." No, I am for requirements not against them. What are the requirements (or features) of the new platform which does not apply to HN - that is the question.
  - RangerScience 7y ago

Yeah, but in that case you can get the requirements, right? That's what is not clear to me here. And you did not clarify either. Why is that if you make it seem so simple?

RangerScience 7y ago

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you're saying on a grammatical level. Can you rephrase?

pezo1919 7y ago
Yeah, sorry, edited: I omitted the word "get"
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- RangerScience 7y ago
  Thanks! Hmm. I tried to answer but I'm still finding it unclear. Can you rephrase with less abstraction and more verbose specifics? Edit: It might not clear what I'm not finding clear. It's not clear to me who you're referring to in the first sentence, or what "get" means in "get the requirements", or what you're referring to when you say "the requirements". It's not clear to me what the "that" is in "that's what's not clear to me". I don't understand what you thought I should have clarified but didn't. I'm not sure even how to begin approaching your last sentence. I really do think that a more verbose rephrase would resolve all these.
  - pezo1919 7y ago
    "At least part of it is the same reason you might want to hang out with people already skilled in your disciplines: you get to go do the advanced stuff, instead of getting the other people up to speed." In that case you can give "requirements" what is needed to work with you in your tempo, right? What the discussion is about (at least to me) is not about the right of picking your people to go together with (ofc you can do that) but about the specific, concrete "requirements" which the "new platform" implements but HN does not.
    - RangerScience 7y ago
      Thanks! > In that case you can give "requirements" what is needed to work with you in your tempo, right? This part is clear. Yes. I would give those requirements, although probably not with term - not like it's a job interview or something. > What the discussion is about (at least to me) This is clear. > is not about the right of picking your people to go together with This is not clear? It's a very convoluted sentence. > but about the specific, concrete "requirements" This is mostly clear. What do you see as the requirements being implemented by the new platform?
      - pezo1919 7y ago
        "What do you see as the requirements being implemented by the new platform?" Yes, that should be my question for you! :)

RangerScience 7y ago

(See branch for clarity) What I think you're saying is that the requirements don't make sense to you, or that they bother you because you're thinking that they're not requirements you can meet. IMO, you can at least meet the requirements in spirit. AFAIK / IMO, most groups that defined themselves as for X or Y group are mostly doing two things: 1) They want to center the conversations around topics not normally in the center 2) They want to avoid issues that people from outside the group commonly have 2b) They want to avoid issues that people from outside the group commonly have when interacting people from inside the group. #1 is pretty normal and maps well onto any group defined by common experiences. You succeed or fail at this pretty much the way you succeed or fail in any group. Join a ham radio group to talk about not ham radio, and when you don't have any interest in learning more about ham radio? Yeah. Good way to do this on the 'net is to lurk. #2 is a a lot subtler and harder to hear, particularly when you're likely to have those common issues. Some of them are just communication styles: Ever seen a group of guys excitedly discuss something? Interruptions are the norm. Some are massively problematic even if they're rare, like harassment. Or situation specific, like asking the group to teach you enough for #1. Some groups like to educate newcomers so they can do #1, others just want to do #1 without that. Resolving #1 takes learning, but resolving #2 takes training, and facing hard things. Both of these are resolvable through dedicated work. Go learn enough about the group that you have something worthwhile to add for #1, go learn enough about yourself and that group so you know what the common issues are, take a hard look at yourself to understand which you have, and then train yourself so you can avoid them. Most groups (IMO) that define themselves as for A, and/or for excluding B, are doing so to save time, effort and risk. It's a cheap and reliable way to achieve #1 and #2.

pezo1919 7y ago
"What I think you're saying is that the requirements don't make sense to you, or that they bother you because you're thinking that they're not requirements you can meet." No, I am for requirements not against them. What are the requirements (or features) of the new platform which does not apply to HN - that is the question.
- RangerScience 7y ago