3 ms·

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

kstenerud 5y ago
Yes, it's unfortunate that people have latched onto that xkcd comic as their preferred way to dismiss new things out of hand without expending any energy on critical thought. We should start calling them the "927 club".
- red0point 5y ago
  Instead of feeling personally attacked and resorting to pettiness, maybe you could instead start by explaining why existing standards are bad and why your proposed standard is superior. The xkcd pretty neatly summarized the situation as of now. You developed and self-promote a new standard but do not explain why anyone should care.
  - JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
    I think it's less about the xkcd (I had similar thoughts but hadn't looked at the linked standard so don't know if it's justified), and more that simply linking the xkcd is not really enough discussion to justify it as a neat summary. Linked in context with other response points and it's a worthy reference, but dropped without much further discussion and the onus feels like it remains on you to justify it.
    - red0point 5y ago
      He proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad. I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. He proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad. I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. And indeed, critical self-reflection is necessary when developing a standard - why is it necessary? What does it do better? Otherwise, it‘s just as in the xkcd - a standard that nobody will ever use. And instead of explaining just that he choses to attack me. But you‘re right, a little accompanying text wouldn‘t have hurt.
      - red0point 5y ago
        Edit: I‘m on mobile so sorry about that weird comment repeating the same thing again and again, I was rewriting these paragraphs a few times, should‘ve come out as one. Oh well.
  - mjw1007 5y ago
    I can't speak for kstenerud, but looking at the compact-time github page they appear to have written a solution that meets their own needs, and kindly made it available to the world for free. They don't appear to be attempting to cover all use cases (in particular, it isn't trying to be human-readable), and crucially they don't appear to be proposing it as a standard.
- bawolff 5y ago
  To me this sounds like one of the most quintessential examples of that xkcd. Yes sometimes its overused, but that doesn't mean its never right.

Yes, it's unfortunate that people have latched onto that xkcd comic as their preferred way to dismiss new things out of hand without expending any energy on critical thought. We should start calling them the "927 club".

red0point 5y ago
Instead of feeling personally attacked and resorting to pettiness, maybe you could instead start by explaining why existing standards are bad and why your proposed standard is superior. The xkcd pretty neatly summarized the situation as of now. You developed and self-promote a new standard but do not explain why anyone should care.
- JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
  I think it's less about the xkcd (I had similar thoughts but hadn't looked at the linked standard so don't know if it's justified), and more that simply linking the xkcd is not really enough discussion to justify it as a neat summary. Linked in context with other response points and it's a worthy reference, but dropped without much further discussion and the onus feels like it remains on you to justify it.
  - red0point 5y ago
    He proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad. I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. He proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad. I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. And indeed, critical self-reflection is necessary when developing a standard - why is it necessary? What does it do better? Otherwise, it‘s just as in the xkcd - a standard that nobody will ever use. And instead of explaining just that he choses to attack me. But you‘re right, a little accompanying text wouldn‘t have hurt.
    - red0point 5y ago
      Edit: I‘m on mobile so sorry about that weird comment repeating the same thing again and again, I was rewriting these paragraphs a few times, should‘ve come out as one. Oh well.
- mjw1007 5y ago
  I can't speak for kstenerud, but looking at the compact-time github page they appear to have written a solution that meets their own needs, and kindly made it available to the world for free. They don't appear to be attempting to cover all use cases (in particular, it isn't trying to be human-readable), and crucially they don't appear to be proposing it as a standard.
bawolff 5y ago
To me this sounds like one of the most quintessential examples of that xkcd. Yes sometimes its overused, but that doesn't mean its never right.