4 ms·
So, there's been a lot of reacting to this article on the level of bread preservation, and that's definitely some useful life knowledge, but don't miss the subt
by mumblemumble 6y ago
So, there's been a lot of reacting to this article on the level of bread preservation, and that's definitely some useful life knowledge, but don't miss the subtext: This article is using a debate about bread as the object of a lesson in the importance of precise communication. I've seen this argument happen before. It was once a source of much debate within my extended family. And, like the article describes, the basis for the acrimony was 100% that the two different camps were both defining the word "last" in two subtly different ways, and doggedly refusing to recognize or acknowledge it.
Similar patterns play out elsewhere. For example, open source and copyleft tend to be using different working definitions of "free." And the distinction in question is not the one indicated by the F's capitalization.
- VLM 6y agoAnother classic example is free in the GNU sense vs the BSD sense.
- Karunamon 6y agoWouldn't it be better in the last case to use a different term that's less likely to be misunderstood/misinterpreted, especially in technical contexts that lack much of the cultural baggage that would prevent such a solution offline? So much miscommunication, wasted time, hurt feelings, etc could have been avoided if, say, GNU decided not to muddy the term "free".
- belorn 6y agoEverything could be avoided if the democrats did not muddly the term "freedom" and simply let the definition be the same as liberty. Through if we really want to find out whom to blame for ruining the word, it would be Thomas Hobbes and John Locke combined for not finding an agreement on the words definition.
- mumblemumble 6y agoBetter? Perhaps. Feasible? Not without first eliminating every trace of polysemy and connotation from the natural languages.
- zajio1am 6y ago> For example, open source and copyleft tend to be using different working definitions of "free" Not really. Both proponents of open source (OSI) and proponents of copyleft (FSF) use mostly interchangeable definitions of 'free'. Both copyleft (GPL) and permissive (e.g. BSD licences) are considered free by both sides.
- zajio1am 6y agoAlso, framing the question as 'open source vs copyleft' does not make sense, as these are really two questions 'open source vs free software' and 'permissive vs copyleft'. The first question is mainly about branding of free/open-source software, whether emphasise pragmatic aspects, or idealistic aspects (user freedom). OSI is AFAIK agnostic on 'permissive vs copyleft' question.
- mumblemumble 6y agoThe key word there is "mostly." There are details that differ, though, and that is where the devil creeps in. It's not necessarily even in disagreeing about what practical things can and cannot justifiably be called freedoms. It's more in disagreeing about which ones are important to protect. Which, generally, when people talk about their freedoms, they're using the term as a shorthand for just the freedoms they think need protection. Similarly, I think that both fridge and non-fridge people generally accept both staling and getting moldy as forms of spoilage. It's just that, either as a matter of practicality or as a matter of taste, one group is more preoccupied with staling, either because mold isn't a problem where they live ,or because they are more likely to consider stale bread to be inedible, or because loaves in their house rarely last long enough to mold, anyway. The other has different priorities, and will accept staling in return for a longer time before the bread actually becomes unsafe to eat. But all these subtleties are lost, taking important subtext in the debate with them, if you focus on the broad strokes definition of the word "last" instead of really paying attention to the details.
- pessimizer 6y agoWhen has the OSI ever advanced a definition of "free software"?