4 ms·

> I still find different approaches and other peoples' experience interesting ...except this is the literal opposite of that, this is presented as an introduct

by 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
  > We're discussing this in a broader sense than the OP right? No. > I understand you as dismissing anything not from a reputable institution. Nope. > What? I said, 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. > it would be much better use of your time to just define these institutions. Nope. > 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? ...no. Literally any top 100 university (and their related CS departments) in the world would be a more correct example. > Maybe we're even in agreement but you've painted yourself in a corner? Nope. > "Hence nobody else in the entire world should see any value in it either, because anonymous internet stranger." - Zetice Nope. Turns out I was right, and you have no clue at all what I wrote, despite it being plain and straightforward. What should concern you is the dozen or so people who agreed with me enough to upvote my original comment; what are they getting that you aren't?
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    > No. > Nope. Yes we are, at least I am. Or did someone borrow your account when you said "Avoid individuals entirely"? If we discussed the OP we would be discussing the details of the repo, but when I asked you to elaborate on that all I got was "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality.". I don't see any other way to read you. > ...no. Literally any top 100 university (and their related CS departments) in the world would be a more correct example. Nice, we're getting somewhere. There's good content coming from universities, but relying only on them isn't going to work in a fast moving industry like this. They do not cover everything. My experience is that it's a good starting point but the work is learned by practice, making mistakes and improving. Only then does that knowledge reach universities, but by that time it might be (probably is) outdated. They rarely go deep into the nitty gritty, why PostgresQL over SQLite and similar? I'm sure you've heard the saying "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Hyperbole but there's some truth to it, they aren't really innovators in the field these days. Don't misunderstand me as dismissing them though, but I couldn't get anything done if that was the only source I'm allowed to read. > Turns out I was right, and you have no clue at all what I wrote, despite it being plain and straightforward. Yes, and I read you literally, see my quotes above. You can always correct me or rephrase them if you want. > What should concern you is the dozen or so people who agreed with me enough to upvote my original comment; what are they getting that you aren't? I don't find comfort in internet consensus. The majority of people are reactionary and can't form an original thought to save their lives. Tell them the internet is bad and they'll ask for a ban. Sure I find that concerning but not for the reasons you think, it's the reason democracy will never work, but that's a topic for another discussion. Studies have shown that negative/inflammatory comments get more engagement than constructive ones. Do what you will with that. This post did reach the front page, but I'm sure you'll dismiss that.

by Zetice 3y ago

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
> We're discussing this in a broader sense than the OP right? No. > I understand you as dismissing anything not from a reputable institution. Nope. > What? I said, 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. > it would be much better use of your time to just define these institutions. Nope. > 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? ...no. Literally any top 100 university (and their related CS departments) in the world would be a more correct example. > Maybe we're even in agreement but you've painted yourself in a corner? Nope. > "Hence nobody else in the entire world should see any value in it either, because anonymous internet stranger." - Zetice Nope. Turns out I was right, and you have no clue at all what I wrote, despite it being plain and straightforward. What should concern you is the dozen or so people who agreed with me enough to upvote my original comment; what are they getting that you aren't?
- worksonmine 3y ago
  > No. > Nope. Yes we are, at least I am. Or did someone borrow your account when you said "Avoid individuals entirely"? If we discussed the OP we would be discussing the details of the repo, but when I asked you to elaborate on that all I got was "This is from an anonymous source who has no incentive to be accurate, so it is of unknown quality.". I don't see any other way to read you. > ...no. Literally any top 100 university (and their related CS departments) in the world would be a more correct example. Nice, we're getting somewhere. There's good content coming from universities, but relying only on them isn't going to work in a fast moving industry like this. They do not cover everything. My experience is that it's a good starting point but the work is learned by practice, making mistakes and improving. Only then does that knowledge reach universities, but by that time it might be (probably is) outdated. They rarely go deep into the nitty gritty, why PostgresQL over SQLite and similar? I'm sure you've heard the saying "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Hyperbole but there's some truth to it, they aren't really innovators in the field these days. Don't misunderstand me as dismissing them though, but I couldn't get anything done if that was the only source I'm allowed to read. > Turns out I was right, and you have no clue at all what I wrote, despite it being plain and straightforward. Yes, and I read you literally, see my quotes above. You can always correct me or rephrase them if you want. > What should concern you is the dozen or so people who agreed with me enough to upvote my original comment; what are they getting that you aren't? I don't find comfort in internet consensus. The majority of people are reactionary and can't form an original thought to save their lives. Tell them the internet is bad and they'll ask for a ban. Sure I find that concerning but not for the reasons you think, it's the reason democracy will never work, but that's a topic for another discussion. Studies have shown that negative/inflammatory comments get more engagement than constructive ones. Do what you will with that. This post did reach the front page, but I'm sure you'll dismiss that.