4 ms·

> the opinion that this guy is some sort of savant is that of professional staff on the Hill (named in the article), and is, by definition, qualified. "Qualifi

• romwell 3y ago
  >But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for.& And what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"? Let me guess, it's the fact that they found the expertise of the 20-year-old useful, isn't it? Circular logic at its finest. >To run with the construction analogy,...* Oh, an unqualified (i.e. worthless) construction analogy, based on zero experience in subject matter. Great. An analogy can be used to clarify your point (which is unnecessary - it's clear enough), but in itself, it can't be used to argue your point is valid, because you have zero basis to say that this analogy applies. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of I-beam sizes. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of a Space X rocket blueprint. You don't know which analogy is applicable, because you are not an expert in the field and your opinion is unqualified. And nobody should be convinced by your argument, since it is supported only by the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.
  • pdonis 3y ago
    > what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"? Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things. > Circular logic at its finest. Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above. > based on zero experience in subject matter. Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. That's why I picked that particular analogy to run with: beacuse I do know what people whose job it is to do things like structural engineering calculations are expected to know, and I can compare that with what my common sense would expect people whose job it is to run Congress would be expected to know. > nobody should be convinced by your argument It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.
    • romwell 3y ago
      >Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things. I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today. It is appalling that we are at that stage, but assuming that the rules are simple, and the staffers are inept is unwarranted. >Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above. Ah, same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent. Similarly, every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages, and in particular = C++, and would not ever need to resort to StackOverflow to look up or ask a question. It's just common sense! Wait, no, it isn't, and your entire argument boils down to "it's just common sense that I'm right!". For one, the US Congress is not a common institution, but even if it were, it's just common sense!" isn't even an argument. >Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. The subject matter is congressional rules. You can talk about construction all day long, but your opinions on the subject matter are unqualified and based on zero experience (i.e. worthless). Again, you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex. >It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you. It seems incorrectly. I am basing my opinions on the information presented in the article, and on the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant. Also, a person quoted in the article commented in this very thread, saying essentially the same things as I said above [1]. So, I have a lot of basis for my assumptions, as well as actual information. You're welcome to peruse it. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859