3 ms·

> One man's "having to read between the lines" Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unc

by stale2002 5y ago

> One man's "having to read between the lines" Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear. If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.

CRConrad 5y ago
> If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating. Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you. I'm just saying that at least to me, >>> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 ] and, at the latest, >>> they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 ] felt perfectly clear. That's yanonninator's [sp?] whole beef, right there (twice over), AFAICS. What's not to understand about that?
- stale2002 5y ago
  > What's not to understand about that? Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given. Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C". Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? If you actually make an argument, then other people can judge if they agree that things X, Y, and Z are bad, or they can judge if they agree or disagree with the consequences of A,B, and C. But, when someone just says "They have a board seat", they are making a unopinionated factual statement, as opposed to actually justifying what the tweets intend to imply, which is that them having a board seat is bad for certain reasons which are unstated. Unfortunately, though, I expect the reasons as for why the moral arguments are unstated, is because the person doesn't actually have any moral arguments. Instead, they likely just want to imply that certain things are wrong, without actually having to defend or give reasons as for why the things are at all bad.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? Yes and no: Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact". But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't see that to many people, "They have [bought] a board seat" is not just an "amoral, unopinionated fact" but in itself already a moral punchline to engage with. There is no need for any tweets to "intend to imply" anything. Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant: That's just not how shit is supposed to work, i.e. wrong in itself. And frankly, it's a bit baffling to me how you and those who argue like you seem to have such a hard time understanding this view. I mean, it's one thing not to agree with it, but you're all coming off as if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. Makes me wonder if you're seriously so blind, or if it's some underhanded debating tactic. Whichever it is, in my eyes it seriously weakens your argument.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > to have such a hard time understanding this view. If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community. If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand if there are specific issues, that are more or less bad, based on the informed opinion of someone directly from the community, instead of our uninformed, guesses, that might be right, or wrong, or slightly wrong. For example, maybe the problem is similar to what Microsoft used to do. Maybe it isn't. Maybe Amazon is doing something that is bad, in a separate and different way, than what Microsoft did decades ago. But if you don't actually make the argument, then other people cannot tell if the issue is bad, in a similar way as to how other past issues were, or if it is bad in a different way, than how the microsoft situation was bad. Thats why it is better if people actually make the argument. Because although, yes, I could write a fiction book, or a script for a movie, to describe why these hypothetical issues are bad, I might get it completely wrong, and that the actual thing is bad in a different way, because of something specific to the rust community. > if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. The problem is that I can imagine a dozen different possible ways to "see things that way", which might be completely off the mark, or exactly correct of the reality of the situation. I can imagine multiple different universes, where my guess would be right, or wrong, and I don't actually know which universe I am in, unless the informed party actually makes the argument, all the way through. So I can both imagine arguments, as well as imagine how those guesses could be wrong, and why maybe the situation is wrong in a different way, than my first X number of guesses. Thats why it is so much better if the person actually makes the argument, all the way through. > Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant Hey, if they had specifically said the following "I concede that there are no other negative effects at all, and that amazon hasn't done anything bad, and I have no other arguments, beyond them having a board seat is bad, in and of itself, with no other justification", then that would be an actual understandable, and straight forward argument! But they might have made different arguments. If it literally is that they have absolutely no other arguments, beyond "Them having a board seat is bad, and there are no other bad consequences", then it would be nice if they explicitly said that.

CRConrad 5y ago

> If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating. Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you. I'm just saying that at least to me, >>> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 ] and, at the latest, >>> they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 ] felt perfectly clear. That's yanonninator's [sp?] whole beef, right there (twice over), AFAICS. What's not to understand about that?

stale2002 5y ago
> What's not to understand about that? Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given. Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C". Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? If you actually make an argument, then other people can judge if they agree that things X, Y, and Z are bad, or they can judge if they agree or disagree with the consequences of A,B, and C. But, when someone just says "They have a board seat", they are making a unopinionated factual statement, as opposed to actually justifying what the tweets intend to imply, which is that them having a board seat is bad for certain reasons which are unstated. Unfortunately, though, I expect the reasons as for why the moral arguments are unstated, is because the person doesn't actually have any moral arguments. Instead, they likely just want to imply that certain things are wrong, without actually having to defend or give reasons as for why the things are at all bad.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? Yes and no: Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact". But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't see that to many people, "They have [bought] a board seat" is not just an "amoral, unopinionated fact" but in itself already a moral punchline to engage with. There is no need for any tweets to "intend to imply" anything. Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant: That's just not how shit is supposed to work, i.e. wrong in itself. And frankly, it's a bit baffling to me how you and those who argue like you seem to have such a hard time understanding this view. I mean, it's one thing not to agree with it, but you're all coming off as if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. Makes me wonder if you're seriously so blind, or if it's some underhanded debating tactic. Whichever it is, in my eyes it seriously weakens your argument.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > to have such a hard time understanding this view. If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community. If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand if there are specific issues, that are more or less bad, based on the informed opinion of someone directly from the community, instead of our uninformed, guesses, that might be right, or wrong, or slightly wrong. For example, maybe the problem is similar to what Microsoft used to do. Maybe it isn't. Maybe Amazon is doing something that is bad, in a separate and different way, than what Microsoft did decades ago. But if you don't actually make the argument, then other people cannot tell if the issue is bad, in a similar way as to how other past issues were, or if it is bad in a different way, than how the microsoft situation was bad. Thats why it is better if people actually make the argument. Because although, yes, I could write a fiction book, or a script for a movie, to describe why these hypothetical issues are bad, I might get it completely wrong, and that the actual thing is bad in a different way, because of something specific to the rust community. > if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. The problem is that I can imagine a dozen different possible ways to "see things that way", which might be completely off the mark, or exactly correct of the reality of the situation. I can imagine multiple different universes, where my guess would be right, or wrong, and I don't actually know which universe I am in, unless the informed party actually makes the argument, all the way through. So I can both imagine arguments, as well as imagine how those guesses could be wrong, and why maybe the situation is wrong in a different way, than my first X number of guesses. Thats why it is so much better if the person actually makes the argument, all the way through. > Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant Hey, if they had specifically said the following "I concede that there are no other negative effects at all, and that amazon hasn't done anything bad, and I have no other arguments, beyond them having a board seat is bad, in and of itself, with no other justification", then that would be an actual understandable, and straight forward argument! But they might have made different arguments. If it literally is that they have absolutely no other arguments, beyond "Them having a board seat is bad, and there are no other bad consequences", then it would be nice if they explicitly said that.