3 ms·

> I'm talking about prevailing attitudes I disagree. You are presenting strawman attitudes, representing an extreme interpretation of the past. Exactly what yo

> I'm talking about prevailing attitudes I disagree. You are presenting strawman attitudes, representing an extreme interpretation of the past. Exactly what you accuse me of. Except I cited counter-examples. Even your example of "possible to be skeptical and critical of the labs handling of the virus" has strong issues because when the general scientific consensus is along the lines "Although there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure, our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred through the live wildlife trade in China and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. .... Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic and that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from activities associated with the live wildlife trade there." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715 . The general response to the lab leak hypothesis is "where's the evidence"? Not "you're racist". > This was culturally marked in the show Halt and Catch Fire. A show made, what, 25 years after the era it describes? Do you know about "Kirk Drift"? The Kirk of the original series is not the womanizer people remember him to be. http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/columns/freshly-rememberd-kirk-drift/ http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/columns/freshly-remem... Why do you think Halt and Catch Fire accurately describes things, rather than being subject to its own sense of drift? While my own pop culture example comes from the era you describe. Here's another 1991 quote, from Lippman's C++ Primer: """Object-oriented programming is an evolutionary advance in the design and management of large software systems. It is not, however, the deus ex machina come forth to resolve the many ills of the software industry.""" - https://archive.org/details/cprimer0000lipp/page/530/mode/2up?q=paradigm https://archive.org/details/cprimer0000lipp/page/530/mode/2u... That's in the section titled "Living in a Multi-Paradigm Universe".

kodah 3y ago
> You are presenting strawman attitudes, representing an extreme interpretation of the past. Exactly what you accuse me of. Except I cited counter-examples. lmao, this is so over the top ridiculous. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I validated your examples and said that there's exceptions but I was describing prevailing attitudes. Take your frustration and hostility somewhere else. The only thing I flatly disagree with is that all or most people that agree with lab leak are somehow racists and xenophobes and I find it distasteful that this was pushed by "scientists" who turned out to be heavily involved in the whole thing. Lab leak has just about as much evidence as "zoological origins" so folks like you step off your sad little soap boxes. The original Lancet article calling Lab Leak a "dangerous conspiracy theory": https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The addendum acknowledging competing interests: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01377-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The article acknowledging lab leak should be investigated and carries about as much weight as other theories: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01419-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... If you look up articles and conversation that reference that first citation you'll see most of them derided the theory as racist and xenophobic which had a chilling effect on further investigation for over a year, so much so that it required secretative investigation.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > I didn't "accuse" you of anything You accused me of cherry picking exceptions and interpreting them as prevailing attitudes. Show me the evidence that your points are indeed prevailing attitudes. Where is your evidence that "~30 years ago OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm." I've given several counter-examples. You haven't shown anything. Where is your evidence that "~45 years ago psychology was equivalent to voodoo"? For that all I have a is a pop-culture reference, but your view doesn't explain why a psychologist character in the 1970s is seen as a member of the professional class similar to a dentist or airline flight crew. Where is your evidence that "~10 years ago a language supporting simple asynchronous paradigms, static and cross compilation was a "waste of time".? I gave Go as a counter-example. If you can't provide evidence for those things, why should I believe your viewpoints are other things are any better? > If you look up articles and conversation that reference that first citation As a reminder, you said "~1.5 years ago", not 3 years ago. And I said things haven't changed in the last 18 months or so.
  - kodah 3y ago
    > You accused me of cherry picking exceptions and interpreting them as prevailing attitudes. No I did not. I was talking about what I mentioned being prevailing attitudes and I validated what you said by saying there are exceptions. OOP: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming Midway down the page there's a graph that reflects the early 2000s, OOP languages dominated that graph and that was not a new trend. Another source that claims it directly: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-post-oop-paradigm https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-post-oop-parad... this isn't some niche opinion of mine, it's widely accepted fact that you could've googled on your own. My evidence for what was being said about Go is that I was there, in those conversations. The social relevance and crisis of psychology is discussed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848611001361 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698... You sitting around demanding evidence for stuff that you can easily Google that's non-controversial is exhausting BS. I'm on a cross country road trip my guy, I'm not going to type into the googler for you anymore. You are a completely insufferable human being.

kodah 3y ago

> You are presenting strawman attitudes, representing an extreme interpretation of the past. Exactly what you accuse me of. Except I cited counter-examples. lmao, this is so over the top ridiculous. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I validated your examples and said that there's exceptions but I was describing prevailing attitudes. Take your frustration and hostility somewhere else. The only thing I flatly disagree with is that all or most people that agree with lab leak are somehow racists and xenophobes and I find it distasteful that this was pushed by "scientists" who turned out to be heavily involved in the whole thing. Lab leak has just about as much evidence as "zoological origins" so folks like you step off your sad little soap boxes. The original Lancet article calling Lab Leak a "dangerous conspiracy theory": https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The addendum acknowledging competing interests: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01377-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The article acknowledging lab leak should be investigated and carries about as much weight as other theories: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01419-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... If you look up articles and conversation that reference that first citation you'll see most of them derided the theory as racist and xenophobic which had a chilling effect on further investigation for over a year, so much so that it required secretative investigation.

eesmith 3y ago
> I didn't "accuse" you of anything You accused me of cherry picking exceptions and interpreting them as prevailing attitudes. Show me the evidence that your points are indeed prevailing attitudes. Where is your evidence that "~30 years ago OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm." I've given several counter-examples. You haven't shown anything. Where is your evidence that "~45 years ago psychology was equivalent to voodoo"? For that all I have a is a pop-culture reference, but your view doesn't explain why a psychologist character in the 1970s is seen as a member of the professional class similar to a dentist or airline flight crew. Where is your evidence that "~10 years ago a language supporting simple asynchronous paradigms, static and cross compilation was a "waste of time".? I gave Go as a counter-example. If you can't provide evidence for those things, why should I believe your viewpoints are other things are any better? > If you look up articles and conversation that reference that first citation As a reminder, you said "~1.5 years ago", not 3 years ago. And I said things haven't changed in the last 18 months or so.
- kodah 3y ago
  > You accused me of cherry picking exceptions and interpreting them as prevailing attitudes. No I did not. I was talking about what I mentioned being prevailing attitudes and I validated what you said by saying there are exceptions. OOP: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming Midway down the page there's a graph that reflects the early 2000s, OOP languages dominated that graph and that was not a new trend. Another source that claims it directly: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-post-oop-paradigm https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-post-oop-parad... this isn't some niche opinion of mine, it's widely accepted fact that you could've googled on your own. My evidence for what was being said about Go is that I was there, in those conversations. The social relevance and crisis of psychology is discussed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848611001361 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13698... You sitting around demanding evidence for stuff that you can easily Google that's non-controversial is exhausting BS. I'm on a cross country road trip my guy, I'm not going to type into the googler for you anymore. You are a completely insufferable human being.