4 ms·

It's probably not worth continuing here, seeing that you're already pretty hostile. But I definitely try to minimize the amount of reading necessary to understa

by ptr 6y ago

It's probably not worth continuing here, seeing that you're already pretty hostile. But I definitely try to minimize the amount of reading necessary to understand a concept. Ideally, the concept should be such that it's easy to describe in few words (note "words", not "letters". Also, using many words doesn't make you sound smarter, often it's the opposite). Things don't live in a vacuum, there's always a context, and that's important to consider when communicating...

Geminidog 6y ago
There were people who were insulting to me. You are not one of those people and I was not hostile to you. I wasn't really hostile to those other people also just slightly less polite in my replies. I'm trying to reflect the slight humor in your original post had and I guess it came off as too sarcastic. Apologies. Right I get your point and I'm saying the point is invalid because it doesn't apply to English. Clearly in all your English posts to me you can destroy some portion of the grammar and spelling while maintaining the same level of readability. That is an inherit contradiction to your logic and the way humans think. You save screen space with code but not with english. We use code and english to communicate. Why does your logic which clearly makes sense when applied to code but makes zero sense when applied to English? Why do we want all our english to be much more wordy and verbose then code? My point is that O(n) doesn't actually matter to us because we don't care to save on time complexity for the english language. Clearly english reads better then code so why don't we take programming up to the exact same verbosity level as english? The contradiction between verbosity in code and verbosity in english is the crust of my argument. We also clearly prefer reading english and communicating in english over communicating in code and thus I'm saying it makes sense to bring up your programming verbosity so it reads like english. Also the whole point of the meta reasoning is to point out our contradictory bias. The need to shorten names in code clearly does not come from logical reasoning given the contradictions.

by ptr 6y ago

Geminidog 6y ago

There were people who were insulting to me. You are not one of those people and I was not hostile to you. I wasn't really hostile to those other people also just slightly less polite in my replies. I'm trying to reflect the slight humor in your original post had and I guess it came off as too sarcastic. Apologies. Right I get your point and I'm saying the point is invalid because it doesn't apply to English. Clearly in all your English posts to me you can destroy some portion of the grammar and spelling while maintaining the same level of readability. That is an inherit contradiction to your logic and the way humans think. You save screen space with code but not with english. We use code and english to communicate. Why does your logic which clearly makes sense when applied to code but makes zero sense when applied to English? Why do we want all our english to be much more wordy and verbose then code? My point is that O(n) doesn't actually matter to us because we don't care to save on time complexity for the english language. Clearly english reads better then code so why don't we take programming up to the exact same verbosity level as english? The contradiction between verbosity in code and verbosity in english is the crust of my argument. We also clearly prefer reading english and communicating in english over communicating in code and thus I'm saying it makes sense to bring up your programming verbosity so it reads like english. Also the whole point of the meta reasoning is to point out our contradictory bias. The need to shorten names in code clearly does not come from logical reasoning given the contradictions.