5 ms·

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 wo

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
        Different readers bring different expectations, that's no basis to make any sort of serious argument around.
        Archelaos 3y ago
        That is too simple. There is a whole academic discipline that makes such serious arguments -- or rather couple of them like the different kinds of literary studies, philologies and philosophical hermeneutics. Not to speak of all sorts of publications, tv talks and other places where people make serious arguments about based on their different perspectives. Tens of thousands of people make a living from that and a lot more study or follow it.

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
        Different readers bring different expectations, that's no basis to make any sort of serious argument around.
        Archelaos 3y ago
        That is too simple. There is a whole academic discipline that makes such serious arguments -- or rather couple of them like the different kinds of literary studies, philologies and philosophical hermeneutics. Not to speak of all sorts of publications, tv talks and other places where people make serious arguments about based on their different perspectives. Tens of thousands of people make a living from that and a lot more study or follow it.