3 ms·

> You are presenting strawman attitudes, representing an extreme interpretation of the past. Exactly what you accuse me of. Except I cited counter-examples. lm

by 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.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    And I said they were not prevailing attitudes. > OOP languages dominated that graph and that was not a new trend That's fine. But your claim was that the prevailing attitude was that "OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm". That is not true. > Another source that claims it directly It says "software development has been dominated by a methodology". That is not what you argued. Also - wow, an AOP hype paper from 2003! I hadn't read praise for AspectJ for a long time. In any case, there were a lot of multi-paradigm languages by 2003 - and yes, with OO being a commmon one. People in general were not rejecting procedural, functional, or logic programming on the basis of being a worse paradigm! > My evidence for what was being said about Go is that I was there, in those conversations. And I was there too, and know people who jumped right on it. Meaning that we can't tell what the common perception was. > The social relevance and crisis of psychology is discussed here: That link is about "social psychology" (quoting it, "By 1960, social psychology was primarily a subdiscipline of general psychology; that is, it was practiced primarily by psychologists, in psychology departments, following the principles and methods of general psychology "), not psychologists in general, like a private psychologist one would go to for mental health reasons. And the issue wasn't one of voodoo. The most damning criticism is: ] Thomas went on to argue that social psychology had not only failed to assuage racism; it had in fact sustained and contributed to it, and in the process, alienated minority groups: ‘‘It is not entirely by accident that ghettoized people are saying, more and more, words to the effect, ‘Psychologists, take your psychology and go home’’’ (Thomas, 1970, p. 259). It became increasingly clear to social psychologists and to academics more generally (Metzger, 1970), that they were being accused not just of failing to account for the diverse experiences of oppressed groups, but also of purposefully maintaining the structures responsible for that oppression. It also highlights how that crisis was part of what Schlesinger termed a '‘‘crisis of confidence’’ in American culture' and "undoubtedly part and parcel of what one scholar saw as a larger crisis of academic authority (Metzger, 1970), characterized by student revolt and persistent questioning of the power structures and professed neutrality of the ivory tower." This is not how you characterized it.

by kodah 3y ago

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.
- eesmith 3y ago
  And I said they were not prevailing attitudes. > OOP languages dominated that graph and that was not a new trend That's fine. But your claim was that the prevailing attitude was that "OOP was the only acceptable and superior paradigm". That is not true. > Another source that claims it directly It says "software development has been dominated by a methodology". That is not what you argued. Also - wow, an AOP hype paper from 2003! I hadn't read praise for AspectJ for a long time. In any case, there were a lot of multi-paradigm languages by 2003 - and yes, with OO being a commmon one. People in general were not rejecting procedural, functional, or logic programming on the basis of being a worse paradigm! > My evidence for what was being said about Go is that I was there, in those conversations. And I was there too, and know people who jumped right on it. Meaning that we can't tell what the common perception was. > The social relevance and crisis of psychology is discussed here: That link is about "social psychology" (quoting it, "By 1960, social psychology was primarily a subdiscipline of general psychology; that is, it was practiced primarily by psychologists, in psychology departments, following the principles and methods of general psychology "), not psychologists in general, like a private psychologist one would go to for mental health reasons. And the issue wasn't one of voodoo. The most damning criticism is: ] Thomas went on to argue that social psychology had not only failed to assuage racism; it had in fact sustained and contributed to it, and in the process, alienated minority groups: ‘‘It is not entirely by accident that ghettoized people are saying, more and more, words to the effect, ‘Psychologists, take your psychology and go home’’’ (Thomas, 1970, p. 259). It became increasingly clear to social psychologists and to academics more generally (Metzger, 1970), that they were being accused not just of failing to account for the diverse experiences of oppressed groups, but also of purposefully maintaining the structures responsible for that oppression. It also highlights how that crisis was part of what Schlesinger termed a '‘‘crisis of confidence’’ in American culture' and "undoubtedly part and parcel of what one scholar saw as a larger crisis of academic authority (Metzger, 1970), characterized by student revolt and persistent questioning of the power structures and professed neutrality of the ivory tower." This is not how you characterized it.