3 ms·

> I mention this because I find myself in complete disagreement with the article in question. You are absolutely right. The article reminds me strongly of what

> I mention this because I find myself in complete disagreement with the article in question. You are absolutely right. The article reminds me strongly of what Harry Frankfurt refers to in "On Bulshit".[1] If someone is not even remotely able to explain what moving fast actually means in his context, then everything and nothing follows from this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

dasil003 3y ago
How do you draw the conclusion that the author can't explain what he means by moving fast? Just because it wasn't adequately explained for someone with your worldview and experience doesn't mean that it's bullshit. Other possibilities are that if you had a face-to-face conversation he could explain it to you, or that you lack the domain experience and context to understand it. Personally as someone with 25 years web product engineering experience and working very closely with design at large companies, I can quibble with a lot of the details and phrasing, but the overall message makes a lot of sense, and I have personally witnessed the dysfunction of trying to evolve DLS elemtns at the same speed as day-to-day product design on more than one occasion.
- Archelaos 3y ago
  > How do you draw the conclusion that the author can't explain what he means by moving fast? He just doesn't. Quote the passage were he does!
  - Jtsummers 3y ago
    Not doing something is not the same as not being able to do something. That should be pretty obvious to most people. Reach out and contact the author and find out rather than assuming that he's unable to explain what he means. His contact info is linked from the article page, click on his name.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      > Not doing something is not the same as not being able to do something This is a vacuous statement. We can only look at what they write, not what they're thinking inside their head when they write it, so too for understanding whether they can actually explain something or not. Telling someone to contact the author when the author themself can just...write it down in the initial article is uncharitable.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jtsummers 3y ago
        > Telling someone to contact the author when the author themself can just...write it down in the initial article is uncharitable. This part of your comment really amuses me. It's uncharitable of me to suggest reaching out for clarification instead of assuming the author is incapable of clarifying. That's what's uncharitable in this thread. Not the assumption that the author can't clarify their statements, but suggesting reaching out instead of assuming that. I'd ask you to clarify, but you could have just...written it down in your initial comment.
        Archelaos 3y ago
        I think your interpretation of the meaning of "can't" is excessively sophistical. Of course, if someone does not do something which is to be expected, we can never completely rule out that he might be able to. But this is besides the point here. There is a severe flaw in the author's line of thought, something central he does not clarify. The reader is under no obligation whatsoever to reach out to the author for clarification. The author should have explained it in the first place. The conclusion that he was unable to do so is sound.
        Talanes 3y ago

dasil003 3y ago

How do you draw the conclusion that the author can't explain what he means by moving fast? Just because it wasn't adequately explained for someone with your worldview and experience doesn't mean that it's bullshit. Other possibilities are that if you had a face-to-face conversation he could explain it to you, or that you lack the domain experience and context to understand it. Personally as someone with 25 years web product engineering experience and working very closely with design at large companies, I can quibble with a lot of the details and phrasing, but the overall message makes a lot of sense, and I have personally witnessed the dysfunction of trying to evolve DLS elemtns at the same speed as day-to-day product design on more than one occasion.

Archelaos 3y ago
> How do you draw the conclusion that the author can't explain what he means by moving fast? He just doesn't. Quote the passage were he does!
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  Not doing something is not the same as not being able to do something. That should be pretty obvious to most people. Reach out and contact the author and find out rather than assuming that he's unable to explain what he means. His contact info is linked from the article page, click on his name.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    > Not doing something is not the same as not being able to do something This is a vacuous statement. We can only look at what they write, not what they're thinking inside their head when they write it, so too for understanding whether they can actually explain something or not. Telling someone to contact the author when the author themself can just...write it down in the initial article is uncharitable.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 3y ago
      > Telling someone to contact the author when the author themself can just...write it down in the initial article is uncharitable. This part of your comment really amuses me. It's uncharitable of me to suggest reaching out for clarification instead of assuming the author is incapable of clarifying. That's what's uncharitable in this thread. Not the assumption that the author can't clarify their statements, but suggesting reaching out instead of assuming that. I'd ask you to clarify, but you could have just...written it down in your initial comment.
      - Archelaos 3y ago
        I think your interpretation of the meaning of "can't" is excessively sophistical. Of course, if someone does not do something which is to be expected, we can never completely rule out that he might be able to. But this is besides the point here. There is a severe flaw in the author's line of thought, something central he does not clarify. The reader is under no obligation whatsoever to reach out to the author for clarification. The author should have explained it in the first place. The conclusion that he was unable to do so is sound.
        Talanes 3y ago