3 ms·

I don't know why you're arguing. Obviously we're talking about a period where documentation is sparse or non-existent, and most of the players are dead. Why is

I don't know why you're arguing. Obviously we're talking about a period where documentation is sparse or non-existent, and most of the players are dead. Why is this important to you?

allturtles 2y ago
You're making a historical claim and he's disputing it. Is your counterargument is that it was a long time ago so we can just make up whatever we want?
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  No,the "counter argument" as you put it, is that if you only "know" things that come with a link, you have no value over an LLM
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > No,the "counter argument" as you put it, is that if you only "know" things that come with a link, you have no value over an LLM As opposed to knowing things without evidence and trying to convince people of a position without providing evidence? Is that how history is supposed to be done, without evidence? As least with a link you can gauge the quality of the reference and its sources.
throw0101b 2y ago
> Obviously we're talking about a period where documentation is sparse or non-existent, and most of the players are dead. Why is this important to you? Because if you are going to make a claim it'd be useful if you had a citation for it. Because we're as close to the events that occurred as is possible, and it's only going to get 'worse' as time passes, so we should try to get right now. You say that "all Markoff could do was interview a few people". The phrase "few people" is doing a lot of heavy lifting: two of those "few" were Herzfeld (who ran ARPA at the time) and Taylor (who was in charge of getting ARPAnet going). If they didn't know why ARPA why created ARPAnet then who else would? If there were/are supporting documents, interview, etc, which show that surviving a nuclear attack was a motivation, they should be shared. I don't necessarily care what the motivations were, but I'd rather not folks repeating hand-wavy claims that don't seem to have any supporting documentation for. That was what the linked to web page is about in the first: trying to trace and dispel an apparent myth.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have no obligation to do a lot of research for you which, I'm sure, would make no impression on you anyway.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > I have no obligation to do a lot of research for you which, I'm sure, would make no impression on you anyway. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." — Genghis Khan (or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor )
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      OK. I'll just dismiss your claims, too, and we're done.
      - throw0101b 2y ago
        > OK. I'll just dismiss your claims, too, and we're done. LOL. I'm the one quoting Wikipedia and books and putting links to references in his posts. You're the one that has not put a single citation in anything that he's written in this sub-thread.

I don't know why you're arguing. Obviously we're talking about a period where documentation is sparse or non-existent, and most of the players are dead. Why is this important to you?

allturtles 2y ago

You're making a historical claim and he's disputing it. Is your counterargument is that it was a long time ago so we can just make up whatever we want?

AlbertCory 2y ago
No,the "counter argument" as you put it, is that if you only "know" things that come with a link, you have no value over an LLM
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > No,the "counter argument" as you put it, is that if you only "know" things that come with a link, you have no value over an LLM As opposed to knowing things without evidence and trying to convince people of a position without providing evidence? Is that how history is supposed to be done, without evidence? As least with a link you can gauge the quality of the reference and its sources.

throw0101b 2y ago

> Obviously we're talking about a period where documentation is sparse or non-existent, and most of the players are dead. Why is this important to you? Because if you are going to make a claim it'd be useful if you had a citation for it. Because we're as close to the events that occurred as is possible, and it's only going to get 'worse' as time passes, so we should try to get right now. You say that "all Markoff could do was interview a few people". The phrase "few people" is doing a lot of heavy lifting: two of those "few" were Herzfeld (who ran ARPA at the time) and Taylor (who was in charge of getting ARPAnet going). If they didn't know why ARPA why created ARPAnet then who else would? If there were/are supporting documents, interview, etc, which show that surviving a nuclear attack was a motivation, they should be shared. I don't necessarily care what the motivations were, but I'd rather not folks repeating hand-wavy claims that don't seem to have any supporting documentation for. That was what the linked to web page is about in the first: trying to trace and dispel an apparent myth.

AlbertCory 2y ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have no obligation to do a lot of research for you which, I'm sure, would make no impression on you anyway.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > I have no obligation to do a lot of research for you which, I'm sure, would make no impression on you anyway. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." — Genghis Khan (or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor )
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    OK. I'll just dismiss your claims, too, and we're done.
    - throw0101b 2y ago
      > OK. I'll just dismiss your claims, too, and we're done. LOL. I'm the one quoting Wikipedia and books and putting links to references in his posts. You're the one that has not put a single citation in anything that he's written in this sub-thread.