3 ms·

You seem to be suffering from the belief that techies are smarter than everyone else, which is not only offensive but just wrong. While techies spent four year

You seem to be suffering from the belief that techies are smarter than everyone else, which is not only offensive but just wrong. While techies spent four years in college learning math and CS theory, journalists spent four years learning how to suss truth from fiction. That is in fact their main skill -- finding truth amongst unreliable sources. > California Prop 22 reporting. Universally wrong about the significance of the 7/8ths rule. Actually, I found it very hard to find a mainstream reporter who got this correct considering the text of the bill. I am however quite curious about this one. I followed this closely and did not see the bias you claim. What was it that all the journalists got wrong about the 7/8s rule?

renewiltord 5y ago
> What was it that all the journalists got wrong about the 7/8s rule? If you would mind explaining what you understand the rule to be, which sections of the proposition text helped you reach that conclusion, and how confident you are in that interpretation, I will happily describe my side of this. > You seem to be suffering from the belief that techies are smarter than everyone else, which is not only offensive but just wrong. Ah, no. I stick by what I said, which is not what you seem to have read. But I'll quote it here anyway: > In my experience, if you ask a random SF Bay startup software engineer or medical doctor to spend 30 mins on research they will outperform a professional journalist over the same period of time. This makes sense: it isn't that journalists are better at news; it's that they are the ones who aren't good at anything specific and are therefore doing news. Imagine that I used those words intentionally and also purposely avoided saying "smarter" and "everyone else" and all that. And since I didn't explain "outperform", we will interpret it as "model the world in a more accurate way".
- jedberg 5y ago
  > If you would mind explaining what you understand the rule to be, which sections of the proposition text helped you reach that conclusion, and how confident you are in that interpretation, I will happily describe my side of this. Usually the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. What did the journalists say and how was it wrong? You said they all got it wrong, but do you have an example? What is the "right" interpretation and what in the bill text makes you think that? > Imagine that I used those words intentionally and avoided saying "smarter" and "everyone else" and all that. "it's that they are the ones who aren't good at anything specific and are therefore doing news." That's just a coded way of saying "they aren't smart enough to do anything specific so they do something I think is easy". You clearly think techies are smarter than others and are better at doing a job the journalists spent years in school learning.
  - rrss 5y ago
    regarding prop 22's 7/8ths, i commented on this at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24867819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24867819 IIRC, the comment to which I replied reflected a pretty common understanding of the issue and was in some of the reporting on prop 22.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    jedberg, if you want me to convince you of something, then you have to pay my consulting rate - for which I last successfully charged $800/hr, min two hours. If you just want to have a conversation, then you'll understand that I enjoy these when we're both being useful to each other, and it's not just me doing work for you. But if you don't like that, it's okay: we can just decide not to talk about that. > That's just a coded way of saying "they aren't smart enough to do anything specific so they do something I think is easy". You clearly think techies are smarter than others and are better at doing a job the journalists spent years in school learning. Nope, people say "smart" for innate talent. I make no claim to that. I'm only making a claim to outcome. I think they lack skill (a trainable thing) in comparison, yes.
    - jedberg 5y ago
      If you think journalists lack a skill for which they go to college for but techies just have that skill innately, then you are incredibly misinformed. And if you don’t actually have the evidence to back up your claims just say so. You don’t have to hide behind this faux intellectualism or whatever you call bragging about your consulting rate. I’m not sure what my opinion on the 7/8ths matter has anything to do with anything. You claimed the journalists got it wrong, and I asked how.
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        Mate, you keep going for this innate thing or whatever, and I keep saying it's something that comes from practised experience. It's obviously touched a nerve because you're clearly upset and calling me names but I can't imagine why. It's not a particularly controversial thing. And it's obvious why I'm asking you to put in some work: the standard on this board is to go "citation needed" and then not contribute equal work. So I want either an expression of good faith from you by you doing equivalent work or by you paying me. And come on, you live in the Bay. You know that's (to my embarrassment) not bragging.
YATA0 5y ago
>journalists spent four years learning how to suss truth from fiction. That is in fact their main skill -- finding truth amongst unreliable sources. AHAHAHAHAHA *inhales* AHAHAHAHAHA! Good one! This is some fantastic post-irony.

renewiltord 5y ago

> What was it that all the journalists got wrong about the 7/8s rule? If you would mind explaining what you understand the rule to be, which sections of the proposition text helped you reach that conclusion, and how confident you are in that interpretation, I will happily describe my side of this. > You seem to be suffering from the belief that techies are smarter than everyone else, which is not only offensive but just wrong. Ah, no. I stick by what I said, which is not what you seem to have read. But I'll quote it here anyway: > In my experience, if you ask a random SF Bay startup software engineer or medical doctor to spend 30 mins on research they will outperform a professional journalist over the same period of time. This makes sense: it isn't that journalists are better at news; it's that they are the ones who aren't good at anything specific and are therefore doing news. Imagine that I used those words intentionally and also purposely avoided saying "smarter" and "everyone else" and all that. And since I didn't explain "outperform", we will interpret it as "model the world in a more accurate way".

jedberg 5y ago
> If you would mind explaining what you understand the rule to be, which sections of the proposition text helped you reach that conclusion, and how confident you are in that interpretation, I will happily describe my side of this. Usually the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. What did the journalists say and how was it wrong? You said they all got it wrong, but do you have an example? What is the "right" interpretation and what in the bill text makes you think that? > Imagine that I used those words intentionally and avoided saying "smarter" and "everyone else" and all that. "it's that they are the ones who aren't good at anything specific and are therefore doing news." That's just a coded way of saying "they aren't smart enough to do anything specific so they do something I think is easy". You clearly think techies are smarter than others and are better at doing a job the journalists spent years in school learning.
- rrss 5y ago
  regarding prop 22's 7/8ths, i commented on this at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24867819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24867819 IIRC, the comment to which I replied reflected a pretty common understanding of the issue and was in some of the reporting on prop 22.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  jedberg, if you want me to convince you of something, then you have to pay my consulting rate - for which I last successfully charged $800/hr, min two hours. If you just want to have a conversation, then you'll understand that I enjoy these when we're both being useful to each other, and it's not just me doing work for you. But if you don't like that, it's okay: we can just decide not to talk about that. > That's just a coded way of saying "they aren't smart enough to do anything specific so they do something I think is easy". You clearly think techies are smarter than others and are better at doing a job the journalists spent years in school learning. Nope, people say "smart" for innate talent. I make no claim to that. I'm only making a claim to outcome. I think they lack skill (a trainable thing) in comparison, yes.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    If you think journalists lack a skill for which they go to college for but techies just have that skill innately, then you are incredibly misinformed. And if you don’t actually have the evidence to back up your claims just say so. You don’t have to hide behind this faux intellectualism or whatever you call bragging about your consulting rate. I’m not sure what my opinion on the 7/8ths matter has anything to do with anything. You claimed the journalists got it wrong, and I asked how.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Mate, you keep going for this innate thing or whatever, and I keep saying it's something that comes from practised experience. It's obviously touched a nerve because you're clearly upset and calling me names but I can't imagine why. It's not a particularly controversial thing. And it's obvious why I'm asking you to put in some work: the standard on this board is to go "citation needed" and then not contribute equal work. So I want either an expression of good faith from you by you doing equivalent work or by you paying me. And come on, you live in the Bay. You know that's (to my embarrassment) not bragging.

YATA0 5y ago

>journalists spent four years learning how to suss truth from fiction. That is in fact their main skill -- finding truth amongst unreliable sources. AHAHAHAHAHA *inhales* AHAHAHAHAHA! Good one! This is some fantastic post-irony.