3 ms·

Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Look, the point here is

Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Look, the point here is not whether using the image is a good idea or not; it's about whether an organization such as IEEE should ban it. The fact that using this image is technically a disaster (for all the technical reasons presented by so many people) only makes it easier for the ban to be instated and convince people like you that it's ok to do that. But the fact is that the technical reasons were not what supported the ban, and when you keep defending it using other arguments which are not the ones that led to the ban, you're just feeding a monster.

matsemann 3y ago
> Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. Isn't IEEE made up of people? > If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Lucky for you that you're oblivious to these kind of issues, but it's not as easy as you portray it to be. Most people will shut up and "just accept it" to not stir the pot. People aren't writing a paper in isolation using this, so can't easily just switch if the rest of the community uses it to benchmark, the co-authors want to use it etc. > and convince people like you that it's ok to do that. Please define "people like me". Tread carefully. > and when you keep defending it using other arguments which are not the ones that led to the ban, you're just feeding a monster. Don't lie. I've only used the arguments put forward by IEEE in the article.