3 ms·

> against some guy whose newfound obsession was whether you had an XY Problem Against some volunteer who's encountering their fourteenth clear XY problem of th

> against some guy whose newfound obsession was whether you had an XY Problem Against some volunteer who's encountering their fourteenth clear XY problem of the day.

StableAlkyne 5mo ago
That's the thing though, it was voluntary. If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day. I get that dealing with low quality questions wasn't great, but imagine spending an afternoon researching a weird thing using some tools your organization mandates, writing it up, only for that person to skim it and just assume you really wanted to do $otherThing.
- TeMPOraL 5mo ago
  This. And it's even starting to be a problem with LLMs - noticed that with Claude and Gemini this week. Yes, I am specifically asking if it's possible to do X with Y. No, I'm not interested in how to do ${unrelated except for name} thing A with Y, or ${manual variant of X} by hand to ${subset of Y}, nor do I want to use tool Q instead. I specifically want to know how to do X with Y, for reasons that are my own and borne of frustration with Y being a toy I'm trying to use for productive work, which apparently means pushing it past its operational envelope, but I have a deadline...
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day. That frustration is likely part of the decline, yes.
  - StableAlkyne 5mo ago
    And also part of the decline from the asker side, once a less abrasive alternative became available
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Again: the "less abrasive alternative" is built off the labor and knowledge of those abrasive folks. They're a large part of the reason it knows what to less-abrasively suggest.
      - StableAlkyne 5mo ago
        Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters. This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison. For better or for worse, people are cursed with ego, and we need to account for that when communicating with others. It is a failing of the platform (and a tragedy, because it is healthier to learn from a human) that it was unable to foster a positive environment.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison. People flock to heroin, too. > Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters. This applies to asking questions, too.
TeMPOraL 5mo ago
> Against some volunteer who's encountering their fourteenth clear XY problem of the day. Fourteenth clear as imagined in their head XY problem of the day. By far most of the "XY problems" I saw, on SO or elsewhere, were actually "XY problem problems" - i.e. a responder having so limited imagination and character (or, to be charitable, just running very low on energy and focus), that upon coming across a question they couldn't comprehend, they would assume the person asking the question must be confused instead.

> against some guy whose newfound obsession was whether you had an XY Problem Against some volunteer who's encountering their fourteenth clear XY problem of the day.

StableAlkyne 5mo ago

That's the thing though, it was voluntary. If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day. I get that dealing with low quality questions wasn't great, but imagine spending an afternoon researching a weird thing using some tools your organization mandates, writing it up, only for that person to skim it and just assume you really wanted to do $otherThing.

TeMPOraL 5mo ago
This. And it's even starting to be a problem with LLMs - noticed that with Claude and Gemini this week. Yes, I am specifically asking if it's possible to do X with Y. No, I'm not interested in how to do ${unrelated except for name} thing A with Y, or ${manual variant of X} by hand to ${subset of Y}, nor do I want to use tool Q instead. I specifically want to know how to do X with Y, for reasons that are my own and borne of frustration with Y being a toy I'm trying to use for productive work, which apparently means pushing it past its operational envelope, but I have a deadline...
ceejayoz 5mo ago
> If it isn't fun to do, and simply causes frustration, that hypothetical person constructed in the comment could just step away for the day. That frustration is likely part of the decline, yes.
- StableAlkyne 5mo ago
  And also part of the decline from the asker side, once a less abrasive alternative became available
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Again: the "less abrasive alternative" is built off the labor and knowledge of those abrasive folks. They're a large part of the reason it knows what to less-abrasively suggest.
    - StableAlkyne 5mo ago
      Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters. This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison. For better or for worse, people are cursed with ego, and we need to account for that when communicating with others. It is a failing of the platform (and a tragedy, because it is healthier to learn from a human) that it was unable to foster a positive environment.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison. People flock to heroin, too. > Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters. This applies to asking questions, too.

TeMPOraL 5mo ago

> Against some volunteer who's encountering their fourteenth clear XY problem of the day. Fourteenth clear as imagined in their head XY problem of the day. By far most of the "XY problems" I saw, on SO or elsewhere, were actually "XY problem problems" - i.e. a responder having so limited imagination and character (or, to be charitable, just running very low on energy and focus), that upon coming across a question they couldn't comprehend, they would assume the person asking the question must be confused instead.