3 ms·

I understand the difference, but let's consider the context of the claim. Title: Should high-frequency trading be banned? OP: How about a tax on capital gains

I understand the difference, but let's consider the context of the claim. Title: Should high-frequency trading be banned? OP: How about a tax on capital gains that is inversely proportional to the time the financial instrument is held? The biggest cost HFT imposes on the world is the brain drain. This thread isn't about discussing the best use of talent, it's about whether talent should be forced to not do certain things, and your post reads naturally in that context. You: Would you call it sinister for example to criticize someone for spending their time murdering people at random? I read this as an equivocation, as though misuse of talent falls into the same category as murdering people.

pg 16y ago
As often happens on forums, I'm responding to the comment I replied to. And I'm only saying what I actually said. I'm not saying HFT should be banned; I have no opinion about that either way. But I do feel it is a waste of talent. I used murder as an instance of misuse of talent. It is an extreme case, obviously, but if you want to prove the existence of something (in this case the possibility of wasting one's talents), the fastest way to do it is to use an extreme example, since for existence proofs any example will do.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  When people interpret communication, I think they usually do this according to what is the usual meaning in the context of the communication--akin to the theory of originalism. In a sustained conversation it's unreasonable to expect readers to perform a context-shift every time someone says something, especially when the in-context reading (particularly the murder comment) is more natural than the out-of-context reading. Judging by other posts and the rollercoaster upvote/downvote response, I'm not the only one who read it "wrong". Normally it's fruitless to argue about these sorts of things, but I kind of want to see if anyone disagrees with my 'heuristic of conversational originalism'. I'm pretty fond of it myself; it's been very helpful for me.
  - vietor 16y ago
    > I kind of want to see what other hackers think of this 'heuristic of conversational originalism'. It's a threaded comment system, rather than a flat comment system. To me this implies that the search for context should begin with the most tightly bound scope. By default I assume a comment is a direct reply to its parent, as the writer of the comment made a deliberate choice to place it there. While the larger context informs the tone and examples which will be used, it's the background scenery, not the subject. > In a sustained conversation it's unreasonable to expect readers to perform a context-shift every time someone says something Maybe I'm reading this too strongly, but how else can you have a conversation? Every statement is, most immediately, in the context of the directly preceding statement, that's what a dialog is. > especially when the in-context reading (particularly the murder comment) is more natural than the out-of-context reading. Again, maybe I'm completely misreading you here. But what exactly do you mean by the 'in-context' reading in this case? The subject as I read it was: "Humans will always be underemployed from some perspective ("Oh but she could be doing X"). Penalizing them for not operating in a way that is consistent with your (or anyone's) world view is far more sinister." With a larger context of the validity of 'wasting time' as a criticism, the implication that what constitutes a waste of time is purely subjective, and the background example given being HFT vs. Ad revenue. (The choice of HFT as an example being the result of the overall context of the article) As requested, that's what this hacker thinks.
    - cynicalkane 16y ago
      Thanks for the comments. I think part of my claim rests on baberuth's comment, particularly the part that you quoted, supporting multiple possible conversation threads. You can reply to it talking about the criticism of wasting time, or by talking about whether or not in fact people should be "penalizing them for not operating" in that fashion.

pg 16y ago

As often happens on forums, I'm responding to the comment I replied to. And I'm only saying what I actually said. I'm not saying HFT should be banned; I have no opinion about that either way. But I do feel it is a waste of talent. I used murder as an instance of misuse of talent. It is an extreme case, obviously, but if you want to prove the existence of something (in this case the possibility of wasting one's talents), the fastest way to do it is to use an extreme example, since for existence proofs any example will do.

cynicalkane 16y ago
When people interpret communication, I think they usually do this according to what is the usual meaning in the context of the communication--akin to the theory of originalism. In a sustained conversation it's unreasonable to expect readers to perform a context-shift every time someone says something, especially when the in-context reading (particularly the murder comment) is more natural than the out-of-context reading. Judging by other posts and the rollercoaster upvote/downvote response, I'm not the only one who read it "wrong". Normally it's fruitless to argue about these sorts of things, but I kind of want to see if anyone disagrees with my 'heuristic of conversational originalism'. I'm pretty fond of it myself; it's been very helpful for me.
- vietor 16y ago
  > I kind of want to see what other hackers think of this 'heuristic of conversational originalism'. It's a threaded comment system, rather than a flat comment system. To me this implies that the search for context should begin with the most tightly bound scope. By default I assume a comment is a direct reply to its parent, as the writer of the comment made a deliberate choice to place it there. While the larger context informs the tone and examples which will be used, it's the background scenery, not the subject. > In a sustained conversation it's unreasonable to expect readers to perform a context-shift every time someone says something Maybe I'm reading this too strongly, but how else can you have a conversation? Every statement is, most immediately, in the context of the directly preceding statement, that's what a dialog is. > especially when the in-context reading (particularly the murder comment) is more natural than the out-of-context reading. Again, maybe I'm completely misreading you here. But what exactly do you mean by the 'in-context' reading in this case? The subject as I read it was: "Humans will always be underemployed from some perspective ("Oh but she could be doing X"). Penalizing them for not operating in a way that is consistent with your (or anyone's) world view is far more sinister." With a larger context of the validity of 'wasting time' as a criticism, the implication that what constitutes a waste of time is purely subjective, and the background example given being HFT vs. Ad revenue. (The choice of HFT as an example being the result of the overall context of the article) As requested, that's what this hacker thinks.
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    Thanks for the comments. I think part of my claim rests on baberuth's comment, particularly the part that you quoted, supporting multiple possible conversation threads. You can reply to it talking about the criticism of wasting time, or by talking about whether or not in fact people should be "penalizing them for not operating" in that fashion.