5 ms·

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this reads to me like you were trying to get a rise out of him and succeeded... it's posing a question that includes the assertio

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this reads to me like you were trying to get a rise out of him and succeeded... it's posing a question that includes the assertion that he's hypocrite (talk on oss virtues -> own software not oss) live in front of an audience.

ren_engineer 5y ago
insults aren't an argument, if Wolfram doesn't want to get called out for being a hypocrite a good solution is to not be a hypocrite. The fact Wolfram had no actual answer beyond an insult and dodging the question is pretty telling
- westoncb 5y ago
  Sure, it may say something about his (in)ability to be diplomatic or emotionally controlled, but someone can rightly feel unobligated to respond to an accusation of hypocrisy in the middle of a q/a
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Insults are justified if some dick is asking a question trying to get a rise out of him. There is ZERO need to answer questions of that nature. As self absorbed as wolfrsam is it's obvious what's going on. There is NOTHING hypocritical about it. He wants to profit off of his own wolfram language. But at the same time he appreciates the ideals, benefits and other great things that come out of OSS. It's like the video game industry. Let me put it this way, if Closed source didn't exist video games at the triple A level likely wouldn't exist. If open source didn't exist, linux likely wouldn't exist either. Both are good. But I don't have to explain this to you. We all are aware of this on some level. Everyone and I mean everyone literally knows what I just said. Wolfram talking about the good parts of OSS doesn't justify some ass hole from the audience subtly trying to call him a hypocrite with a targeted question like that because BOTH closed source and open source are good. Wolframs response was justified there was no need for him to spend extra time explaining something that's totally obvious to someone who not only already knows the answer but is only asking the question for nefarious reasons.
  - harry8 5y ago
    Well he could answer with whatever his reasoning is that may or may not align with the things you suggest. People take that seriously, including me. Or he could be rude and all I hear is "because I'm a hypocrite and not a great guy." You can answer to justify your decisions without being a jerk. Even if it's a jerk trying to get a rise out of you who does it. If you're the honored guest speaker with everyone competing to kiss your wealthy, famous backside your jerkdom isn't really equivalent to a student asking what appears to be a stunningly obvious question that we don't even know how it was phrased. But maybe I'm so naieve to have seen people respond in a reasonable way to aggressive questions from the floor often enough makes me think it's the right way to go.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      > Well he could answer with whatever his reasoning is that may or may not align with the things you suggest. People take that seriously, including me. He could've but the GP knew he was starting shit by asking that question. Don't expect people to take the high path when you're trying to mess with them. Seriously, if a cop is about to arrest you and you spit in his face don't be surprised when the cop knocks your teeth out when nobody is looking. >You can answer to justify your decisions without being a jerk Definitely. The problem here was GP was being a jerk and trying to make wolfram look bad by inciting a reaction. He succeeded but who really is the true ass hole here? >But maybe I'm so naieve to have seen people respond in a reasonable way Sure those people who respond that way are socially savvy. They know how to manipulate the situation to make themselves look good. Wolfram CLEARLY is not that type of person. But does that make him an ass? Nah. Shutting down a jerk who asks a insidious question like that is not the best response but it's an appropriate one. An eye for an eye.
      - harry8 5y ago
        Two points: 1)Stephen Wolfram is not a police officer and has not been spat at in the face. 2) You don't know the tone of the question and neither do I. The question is obvious and expected and deserves an answer in such a context.
- _HMCB_ 5y ago
  Or maybe the answer wasn’t what what was 1) wanted to be heard, 2) in the manner that was wanted. As you grow older, you look back and maybe there’s something to be learned from an exchange. And it usually doesn’t favor oneself.
joshuamorton 5y ago
Asking about a perceived inconsistency isn't always "trying to get a rise out of someone". It's absolutely wild to me that people are saying that posing this question is implicitly bad faith, or trying to "humiliate" Wolfram or whatever. And like, while I generally think OSS == good, there's lots of software that I think doesn't need to be (or even shouldn't be) OSS, but I have coherent reasons for that.
gnramires 5y ago
The question seems very reasonable. It's certainly not comfortable, but in this context I would expect an answer definitely (the question was not childish or foolish as far as I can tell) Indeed the overall project seems quite fine, but I think it has no chance of getting near Wolfram's aspirations due to its closed nature. It's just a really big proposition that couldn't fit a project like this. (If I recall correctly Wolfram described it himself as the equivalent of Google but storing all structured data of the world within). Google can do it because they don't make many promises on their data. But clearly they seem to want to make promises (i.e. structure) the data, so data collection and data cleaning might need manual curation (even with deep learning advances) which is just fit for a communitarian effort. A single company can't have experts in all fields curating datasets of everything, can it? (and if it can, should it?)

ren_engineer 5y ago

insults aren't an argument, if Wolfram doesn't want to get called out for being a hypocrite a good solution is to not be a hypocrite. The fact Wolfram had no actual answer beyond an insult and dodging the question is pretty telling

westoncb 5y ago
Sure, it may say something about his (in)ability to be diplomatic or emotionally controlled, but someone can rightly feel unobligated to respond to an accusation of hypocrisy in the middle of a q/a
deltaonefour 5y ago
Insults are justified if some dick is asking a question trying to get a rise out of him. There is ZERO need to answer questions of that nature. As self absorbed as wolfrsam is it's obvious what's going on. There is NOTHING hypocritical about it. He wants to profit off of his own wolfram language. But at the same time he appreciates the ideals, benefits and other great things that come out of OSS. It's like the video game industry. Let me put it this way, if Closed source didn't exist video games at the triple A level likely wouldn't exist. If open source didn't exist, linux likely wouldn't exist either. Both are good. But I don't have to explain this to you. We all are aware of this on some level. Everyone and I mean everyone literally knows what I just said. Wolfram talking about the good parts of OSS doesn't justify some ass hole from the audience subtly trying to call him a hypocrite with a targeted question like that because BOTH closed source and open source are good. Wolframs response was justified there was no need for him to spend extra time explaining something that's totally obvious to someone who not only already knows the answer but is only asking the question for nefarious reasons.
- harry8 5y ago
  Well he could answer with whatever his reasoning is that may or may not align with the things you suggest. People take that seriously, including me. Or he could be rude and all I hear is "because I'm a hypocrite and not a great guy." You can answer to justify your decisions without being a jerk. Even if it's a jerk trying to get a rise out of you who does it. If you're the honored guest speaker with everyone competing to kiss your wealthy, famous backside your jerkdom isn't really equivalent to a student asking what appears to be a stunningly obvious question that we don't even know how it was phrased. But maybe I'm so naieve to have seen people respond in a reasonable way to aggressive questions from the floor often enough makes me think it's the right way to go.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    > Well he could answer with whatever his reasoning is that may or may not align with the things you suggest. People take that seriously, including me. He could've but the GP knew he was starting shit by asking that question. Don't expect people to take the high path when you're trying to mess with them. Seriously, if a cop is about to arrest you and you spit in his face don't be surprised when the cop knocks your teeth out when nobody is looking. >You can answer to justify your decisions without being a jerk Definitely. The problem here was GP was being a jerk and trying to make wolfram look bad by inciting a reaction. He succeeded but who really is the true ass hole here? >But maybe I'm so naieve to have seen people respond in a reasonable way Sure those people who respond that way are socially savvy. They know how to manipulate the situation to make themselves look good. Wolfram CLEARLY is not that type of person. But does that make him an ass? Nah. Shutting down a jerk who asks a insidious question like that is not the best response but it's an appropriate one. An eye for an eye.
    - harry8 5y ago
      Two points: 1)Stephen Wolfram is not a police officer and has not been spat at in the face. 2) You don't know the tone of the question and neither do I. The question is obvious and expected and deserves an answer in such a context.
_HMCB_ 5y ago
Or maybe the answer wasn’t what what was 1) wanted to be heard, 2) in the manner that was wanted. As you grow older, you look back and maybe there’s something to be learned from an exchange. And it usually doesn’t favor oneself.

joshuamorton 5y ago

Asking about a perceived inconsistency isn't always "trying to get a rise out of someone". It's absolutely wild to me that people are saying that posing this question is implicitly bad faith, or trying to "humiliate" Wolfram or whatever. And like, while I generally think OSS == good, there's lots of software that I think doesn't need to be (or even shouldn't be) OSS, but I have coherent reasons for that.

gnramires 5y ago

The question seems very reasonable. It's certainly not comfortable, but in this context I would expect an answer definitely (the question was not childish or foolish as far as I can tell) Indeed the overall project seems quite fine, but I think it has no chance of getting near Wolfram's aspirations due to its closed nature. It's just a really big proposition that couldn't fit a project like this. (If I recall correctly Wolfram described it himself as the equivalent of Google but storing all structured data of the world within). Google can do it because they don't make many promises on their data. But clearly they seem to want to make promises (i.e. structure) the data, so data collection and data cleaning might need manual curation (even with deep learning advances) which is just fit for a communitarian effort. A single company can't have experts in all fields curating datasets of everything, can it? (and if it can, should it?)