5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    > ...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. We're discussing this in a broader sense than the OP right? Individuals vs institutions (whatever those are) and if the former can be useful. You claim they never are, because experts don't need them and novices can't assess the quality. > 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. I understand you as dismissing anything not from a reputable institution. Is that not what you meant by "Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered."? I read you literally. I don't see examples in the real world of institutions being meaningfully harmed by mistakes, ever. > 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. What? > 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. No you don't but it would be much better use of your time to just define these institutions. I claim their "monetary incentive" you mentioned mean they push you into their walled gardens, like AWS, Oracle and others. As I see it unbiased sources don't exist, and all sources have to be taken with a grain of salt. I would love to be proven wrong, why the hesitation to share an example? Was I close with the Docker one? Maybe we're even in agreement but you've painted yourself in a corner? What other conclusions can I draw after all this back and forth? > "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. "Hence nobody else in the entire world should see any value in it either, because anonymous internet stranger." - Zetice With such deep thoughts you should consider running for president, you'll be in good company. You probably understand that everyone starts as a nobody, how are they supposed to build said reputation if nobody ever evaluates them on their work? Chicken and the egg. Maybe that's his incentive? Build reputation, or land a job, or a million other reasons. I don't judge anything on shallow requirements like reputation, it can be a useful metric but never necessary. I would miss a lot of great content if I did.
    - Zetice 3y ago

by Zetice 3y ago

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.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  > ...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. We're discussing this in a broader sense than the OP right? Individuals vs institutions (whatever those are) and if the former can be useful. You claim they never are, because experts don't need them and novices can't assess the quality. > 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. I understand you as dismissing anything not from a reputable institution. Is that not what you meant by "Avoid individuals entirely, and focus on institutions who are meaningfully harmed by their inaccuracy if discovered."? I read you literally. I don't see examples in the real world of institutions being meaningfully harmed by mistakes, ever. > 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. What? > 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. No you don't but it would be much better use of your time to just define these institutions. I claim their "monetary incentive" you mentioned mean they push you into their walled gardens, like AWS, Oracle and others. As I see it unbiased sources don't exist, and all sources have to be taken with a grain of salt. I would love to be proven wrong, why the hesitation to share an example? Was I close with the Docker one? Maybe we're even in agreement but you've painted yourself in a corner? What other conclusions can I draw after all this back and forth? > "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. "Hence nobody else in the entire world should see any value in it either, because anonymous internet stranger." - Zetice With such deep thoughts you should consider running for president, you'll be in good company. You probably understand that everyone starts as a nobody, how are they supposed to build said reputation if nobody ever evaluates them on their work? Chicken and the egg. Maybe that's his incentive? Build reputation, or land a job, or a million other reasons. I don't judge anything on shallow requirements like reputation, it can be a useful metric but never necessary. I would miss a lot of great content if I did.
  - Zetice 3y ago