4 ms·

Nope! You entirely misunderstand; it’s about incentive and consequence, not self esteem or reverence. Those institutions exist as a result of their reputation

by Zetice 3y ago

Nope! You entirely misunderstand; it’s about incentive and consequence, not self esteem or reverence. Those institutions exist as a result of their reputation, and that reputation is harmed by giving bad instruction. This random Internet stranger has no reputation whatsoever, so there is zero incentive for them to operate honestly, beyond whatever self imposed morality they may have. Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes…

worksonmine 3y ago
> Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes… Is that how you read "take nothing at face value"? I question everything, so should you. Which are these infamous institutions you praise? Maybe some of them are among the sources this random internet stranger referenced at the end? Linus Thorvalds once was a random internet stranger, now the world runs on his kernel. Your world view is very black/white. Most of the best content I've read are from random internet strangers, and not institutions. They're often from hands-on experience and not written for PR purposes.
- Zetice 3y ago
  You continue to misunderstand. The concept is a simple one; stop blindly trusting strangers, start finding groups that have a monetary incentive to be accurate. If you can’t grasp the concept of incentive alignment, system design is probably the least of your worries.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    I'm not misunderstanding anything, you're claiming I am just to "win" some internet points. How many times do I have to write "don't take anything at face value"? I assess the content (from multiple sources) not the messenger, of course the messenger counts but that goes both ways (bias is a thing). You claim Docker is pushing Docker desktop over Podman or even their own daemon is out of goodwill and not for telemetry? You have to go out of your way to find the instructions for just the daemon without the bloat. But you're paranoid some blog will trick you into running 'rm -rf /' as root because the source is an "individual"? (straw-man yes, but lacking examples I have to make one up). You won't even provide a single example of a better source when asked, just hand-waving "institutions good, individuals bad". There's nothing constructive in this chain, and we're going in circles. I'm genuinely curious of your examples, so if you want to be constructive instead of focusing on my worries please provide some. If not, I wish you the best day.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      Either you are an expert on the topic of systems engineering and can assess the quality of this submission but don’t need it as you have better sources, or you are not an expert and can therefore not assess its quality (it comes from a random person on the Internet, after all) and therefore can’t safely use it. As for Internet points, or arguments, or winning, why do you care? Why even bring it up?
      - worksonmine 3y ago
        I pity you for having such a simple view of things. Even if I've designed systems for a decade I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting. Don't tell me your time is too precious, because obviously you have time for this useless discussion. You don't have to be an expert to make assumptions of the content, learning is incremental. I'll give you an example, I've never dabbled with AI, but I could get a decent feel of the quality of a blog post on the subject. Maybe there's a mistake in there that I'll encounter and have to fix. To me that's a win, because then I know WHY I do something, as opposed to just being told THE way to do something and missing the details. As for why I care? I'm trying to help you broaden your perspective, if possible, maybe it brings me good (real life) karma. The way you word yourself sounds like you're still early in the Dunnin-Kruger scale. Some random internet stranger puts time and effort into creating this repository and sharing it for free. You see it, find no interest in reading it but instead of scrolling past you have to question why anyone else would. I tell you what value it could give others, and you double down, leaning on "trust" and "reputation" of mysterious "institutions". Still waiting for your reputable institutions, or anything resembling a useful response. I've asked what gripes you have with the repository, but crickets. If you aren't even going to try to be constructive why are you wasting your precious time? What are you gaining from this?
        Zetice 3y ago
        > I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting ...except this is the literal opposite of that, this is presented as an introductory resource. The literal opposite of "other peoples' experience", it's an intro into the topic. > You don't have to be an expert to make assumptions of the content, learning is incremental. My entire argument is that you must make evaluations about the source of the content, so I think it's clear you completely missed what I actually said for what you wanted to believe I said. > As for why I care? I'm trying to help you broaden your perspective, if possible, maybe it brings me good (real life) karma. No, I didn't ask why you cared about talking to me, I asked why you cared about Internet Argument Points. You brought them up, then got pissy about me caring about them. > Still waiting for your reputable institutions, or anything resembling a useful response. I don't owe you shit and this is manipulative. You don't get to tell me what to do or how I engage in a conversation. > I've asked what gripes you have with the repository, but crickets. "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality." is my "gripe". It's the gripe you replied to originally, so stop gaslighting. > If you aren't even going to try to be constructive why are you wasting your precious time? What are you gaining from this? I presume you wrote this to yourself.

by Zetice 3y ago

worksonmine 3y ago

> Your method relies on good nature and blind faith, and leaves you open to manipulation, ignorance and misunderstanding; what I describe uses societal forces and self interest to ensure quality. I’m sure you can guess which had better outcomes… Is that how you read "take nothing at face value"? I question everything, so should you. Which are these infamous institutions you praise? Maybe some of them are among the sources this random internet stranger referenced at the end? Linus Thorvalds once was a random internet stranger, now the world runs on his kernel. Your world view is very black/white. Most of the best content I've read are from random internet strangers, and not institutions. They're often from hands-on experience and not written for PR purposes.

Zetice 3y ago
You continue to misunderstand. The concept is a simple one; stop blindly trusting strangers, start finding groups that have a monetary incentive to be accurate. If you can’t grasp the concept of incentive alignment, system design is probably the least of your worries.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  I'm not misunderstanding anything, you're claiming I am just to "win" some internet points. How many times do I have to write "don't take anything at face value"? I assess the content (from multiple sources) not the messenger, of course the messenger counts but that goes both ways (bias is a thing). You claim Docker is pushing Docker desktop over Podman or even their own daemon is out of goodwill and not for telemetry? You have to go out of your way to find the instructions for just the daemon without the bloat. But you're paranoid some blog will trick you into running 'rm -rf /' as root because the source is an "individual"? (straw-man yes, but lacking examples I have to make one up). You won't even provide a single example of a better source when asked, just hand-waving "institutions good, individuals bad". There's nothing constructive in this chain, and we're going in circles. I'm genuinely curious of your examples, so if you want to be constructive instead of focusing on my worries please provide some. If not, I wish you the best day.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Either you are an expert on the topic of systems engineering and can assess the quality of this submission but don’t need it as you have better sources, or you are not an expert and can therefore not assess its quality (it comes from a random person on the Internet, after all) and therefore can’t safely use it. As for Internet points, or arguments, or winning, why do you care? Why even bring it up?
    - worksonmine 3y ago
      I pity you for having such a simple view of things. Even if I've designed systems for a decade I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting. Don't tell me your time is too precious, because obviously you have time for this useless discussion. You don't have to be an expert to make assumptions of the content, learning is incremental. I'll give you an example, I've never dabbled with AI, but I could get a decent feel of the quality of a blog post on the subject. Maybe there's a mistake in there that I'll encounter and have to fix. To me that's a win, because then I know WHY I do something, as opposed to just being told THE way to do something and missing the details. As for why I care? I'm trying to help you broaden your perspective, if possible, maybe it brings me good (real life) karma. The way you word yourself sounds like you're still early in the Dunnin-Kruger scale. Some random internet stranger puts time and effort into creating this repository and sharing it for free. You see it, find no interest in reading it but instead of scrolling past you have to question why anyone else would. I tell you what value it could give others, and you double down, leaning on "trust" and "reputation" of mysterious "institutions". Still waiting for your reputable institutions, or anything resembling a useful response. I've asked what gripes you have with the repository, but crickets. If you aren't even going to try to be constructive why are you wasting your precious time? What are you gaining from this?
      - Zetice 3y ago
        > I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting ...except this is the literal opposite of that, this is presented as an introductory resource. The literal opposite of "other peoples' experience", it's an intro into the topic. > You don't have to be an expert to make assumptions of the content, learning is incremental. My entire argument is that you must make evaluations about the source of the content, so I think it's clear you completely missed what I actually said for what you wanted to believe I said. > As for why I care? I'm trying to help you broaden your perspective, if possible, maybe it brings me good (real life) karma. No, I didn't ask why you cared about talking to me, I asked why you cared about Internet Argument Points. You brought them up, then got pissy about me caring about them. > Still waiting for your reputable institutions, or anything resembling a useful response. I don't owe you shit and this is manipulative. You don't get to tell me what to do or how I engage in a conversation. > I've asked what gripes you have with the repository, but crickets. "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality." is my "gripe". It's the gripe you replied to originally, so stop gaslighting. > If you aren't even going to try to be constructive why are you wasting your precious time? What are you gaining from this? I presume you wrote this to yourself.