4 ms·

I'm listening. Please explain.

by mjd 3y ago

rjh29 3y ago
imo interpretation of actually as "I can't believe someone did this (that someone could be so stupid)" rather than actually as "this is an event that definitely occured". Didn't seem too bad to me.
irrational 3y ago
You basically said, “Can you believe someone actually was so stupid as to ask this question on stackexchange? I didn’t believe anyone could actually be that stupid, so I wasn’t go to address it, but it turns out there actually are people that stupid, and they actually outed themselves by posting their question out in the open! So, here I am having to address it in my blog post in case there are other people who actually are equally stupid.”
- dahart 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure I wrote an anagram solver as a teenager that just spins through permutations forever. I guess I was that stupid once. No comment on whether I’m cured now. Your point is valid, the wording can be read as to imply negativity, but that’s also interpreting it in a negative light. The author was also defending his warning against an imaginary rebuttal, justifying the mention to not to waste time solving anagrams the naive brute force way. I don’t think he was trying to be elitist or offensive, and it is in fact true that people will solve anagrams the slow way, so doesn’t hurt to mention it, and it can even help on occasion. We don’t have to take it as condescending.
- mjd 3y ago
  I didn't “basically” say any of that. I didn't say any of it at all; you made it all up and then attributed it to me. All I actually did was to state a fact: someone on StackExchange actually asked this question. All those thoughts about what a stupid question it is, and how stupid someone must have been to ask it—all those are thoughts you had, not me.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    FWIW, I also originally read that line to imply "I thought this was obvious, but apparently I need to be explicit anyway". Given the tone of the rest of the article I assumed that I'd either read something into it that wasn't there or was missing some context - for example, perhaps the person on SO had insisted that this was the correct approach, and you'd gone to some lengths to show that it was not and were exasperated by it by the time you wrote the article. At any rate - it didn't really take away from your article for me, but I did see it as condescending.
    - mjd 3y ago
      Thanks for letting me know.

I'm listening. Please explain.

by mjd 3y ago

I'm listening. Please explain.

imo interpretation of actually as "I can't believe someone did this (that someone could be so stupid)" rather than actually as "this is an event that definitely occured". Didn't seem too bad to me.

irrational 3y ago

You basically said, “Can you believe someone actually was so stupid as to ask this question on stackexchange? I didn’t believe anyone could actually be that stupid, so I wasn’t go to address it, but it turns out there actually are people that stupid, and they actually outed themselves by posting their question out in the open! So, here I am having to address it in my blog post in case there are other people who actually are equally stupid.”

dahart 3y ago
I’m pretty sure I wrote an anagram solver as a teenager that just spins through permutations forever. I guess I was that stupid once. No comment on whether I’m cured now. Your point is valid, the wording can be read as to imply negativity, but that’s also interpreting it in a negative light. The author was also defending his warning against an imaginary rebuttal, justifying the mention to not to waste time solving anagrams the naive brute force way. I don’t think he was trying to be elitist or offensive, and it is in fact true that people will solve anagrams the slow way, so doesn’t hurt to mention it, and it can even help on occasion. We don’t have to take it as condescending.
mjd 3y ago
I didn't “basically” say any of that. I didn't say any of it at all; you made it all up and then attributed it to me. All I actually did was to state a fact: someone on StackExchange actually asked this question. All those thoughts about what a stupid question it is, and how stupid someone must have been to ask it—all those are thoughts you had, not me.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  FWIW, I also originally read that line to imply "I thought this was obvious, but apparently I need to be explicit anyway". Given the tone of the rest of the article I assumed that I'd either read something into it that wasn't there or was missing some context - for example, perhaps the person on SO had insisted that this was the correct approach, and you'd gone to some lengths to show that it was not and were exasperated by it by the time you wrote the article. At any rate - it didn't really take away from your article for me, but I did see it as condescending.
  - mjd 3y ago
    Thanks for letting me know.