3 ms·

And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.

by Timon3 2mo ago

otterley 2mo ago
Hencken’s quote is a pithy statement that can be translated thusly: If you’re about to make an argument that starts with “just do x” or “an obvious solution is y” or come up with “simple” solutions for problems that are clearly not simple if you spend a modicum of time analyzing the issue, you’re probably wrong from the start. If people have been disagreeing about a perceived problem for years, it’s pretty conclusive evidence that the problem is not simple, and thus neither will be the solution. There will be tradeoffs.
- Timon3 2mo ago
  Thanks, I was already well aware when I wrote my response. But I'm afraid one of us is either misunderstanding textrunmax or Mencken, because (at least to me) the OP wasn't implying that this proposed law would be a holistic solution for the entire issue in all it's complexity. I'm sure textrunmax is aware that this law would also introduce downsides, but it's absolutely normal to post ideas without listing negatives. And since you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue, all we seem to be left with is the use of "simple". Yet complex ideas can be introduced as "simple" (and frequently are!), so I'm left to assume that you're only dismissing the idea because you pattern matched "simple" to this quote.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    I think we differ on the interpretation. I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple; I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple (or, worse, “trivial”) to do, you get assigned the work and are held responsible for the outcome. It’s a valuable lesson in humility and understanding how a junior engineer becomes a senior one. Look, too, at the current political situation we find ourselves in today: people are too easily attracted to politicians who claim to have easy answers to problems. Then, when they get into office, they make those problems worse. > you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue This issue has been going on for years. There's not a lot I can add here that hasn't already been said. I will say, though, that I find it valuable to participate in a thought experiment: why did phone manufacturers insist on tightly coupling hardware with software in the first place, unlike with personal computers? The explanations are easy to find, and not all of them are about having antipathy for customers and developers or pure greed. I've no doubt that even your favorite LLM can provide one. > complex ideas can be introduced as "simple“ I would more finely tune the language. A problem can be simply stated, but that doesn’t mean the problem itself is a simple one. Perhaps you think I’m splitting hairs here, but in a world of ambiguous communication, I believe clarity is important.
    - Timon3 2mo ago
      I believe to understand where this issue started: > I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple[...] You're interpreting textrunmax's use of "simple" as a technical judgement of difficulty/complexity/etc of their proposed law, but in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device (one I see used often these days, so I thought it's well-known). So from my perspective, your previous comment discounts their idea without any justification, and thus only serves to derail the conversation because their use of "simple" triggered you. I might be wrong, but since you haven't explained what exactly makes their idea a simple solution in the quote's sense, I can't explain why I think such a law is a valid solution to the issue at hand - and that's what makes shallow dismissals like your original comment so annoying.
      - otterley 2mo ago
        > in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led to things becoming tangibly worse in our society. That alone is enough reason to dismiss it. (I forgot to mention Chesterton's Fence in my previous comment: https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/) Besides, the commenter offered a particular "simple" solution: "One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation." It's not the word "simple" that motivated me to respond, it's that it's also an idea that is a non-starter from a practical perspective. Again, there's nothing new I can add as to why: it's all out there already. See, e.g., https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys... (this is focused specifically on sideloading apps and not the OS itself, but the logic is still applicable) and https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... (pages 5 and 6 set the context).

And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.

by Timon3 2mo ago

And for every idea shared on this site, there is an answer that dismisses it without bringing actual arguments.

Hencken’s quote is a pithy statement that can be translated thusly: If you’re about to make an argument that starts with “just do x” or “an obvious solution is y” or come up with “simple” solutions for problems that are clearly not simple if you spend a modicum of time analyzing the issue, you’re probably wrong from the start. If people have been disagreeing about a perceived problem for years, it’s pretty conclusive evidence that the problem is not simple, and thus neither will be the solution. There will be tradeoffs.

Timon3 2mo ago
Thanks, I was already well aware when I wrote my response. But I'm afraid one of us is either misunderstanding textrunmax or Mencken, because (at least to me) the OP wasn't implying that this proposed law would be a holistic solution for the entire issue in all it's complexity. I'm sure textrunmax is aware that this law would also introduce downsides, but it's absolutely normal to post ideas without listing negatives. And since you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue, all we seem to be left with is the use of "simple". Yet complex ideas can be introduced as "simple" (and frequently are!), so I'm left to assume that you're only dismissing the idea because you pattern matched "simple" to this quote.
- otterley 2mo ago
  I think we differ on the interpretation. I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple; I come from a culture where if you say something at work is simple (or, worse, “trivial”) to do, you get assigned the work and are held responsible for the outcome. It’s a valuable lesson in humility and understanding how a junior engineer becomes a senior one. Look, too, at the current political situation we find ourselves in today: people are too easily attracted to politicians who claim to have easy answers to problems. Then, when they get into office, they make those problems worse. > you haven't explained why their proposal wouldn't actually narrowly fix the issue This issue has been going on for years. There's not a lot I can add here that hasn't already been said. I will say, though, that I find it valuable to participate in a thought experiment: why did phone manufacturers insist on tightly coupling hardware with software in the first place, unlike with personal computers? The explanations are easy to find, and not all of them are about having antipathy for customers and developers or pure greed. I've no doubt that even your favorite LLM can provide one. > complex ideas can be introduced as "simple“ I would more finely tune the language. A problem can be simply stated, but that doesn’t mean the problem itself is a simple one. Perhaps you think I’m splitting hairs here, but in a world of ambiguous communication, I believe clarity is important.
  - Timon3 2mo ago
    I believe to understand where this issue started: > I’ve learned over the years not to casually claim something is simple[...] You're interpreting textrunmax's use of "simple" as a technical judgement of difficulty/complexity/etc of their proposed law, but in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device (one I see used often these days, so I thought it's well-known). So from my perspective, your previous comment discounts their idea without any justification, and thus only serves to derail the conversation because their use of "simple" triggered you. I might be wrong, but since you haven't explained what exactly makes their idea a simple solution in the quote's sense, I can't explain why I think such a law is a valid solution to the issue at hand - and that's what makes shallow dismissals like your original comment so annoying.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      > in the context of a political discussion I understand it as a rhetorical device This points to what I mentioned above: this type of rhetorical device has led to things becoming tangibly worse in our society. That alone is enough reason to dismiss it. (I forgot to mention Chesterton's Fence in my previous comment: https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/ https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/) Besides, the commenter offered a particular "simple" solution: "One simple rule or law could fix this: Every hardware manufacturer that ships an OS must allow the installation of an alternative OS from any third party, with the same access to the hardware as the original OS and all the necessary technical documentation." It's not the word "simple" that motivated me to respond, it's that it's also an idea that is a non-starter from a practical perspective. Again, there's nothing new I can add as to why: it's all out there already. See, e.g., https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys... (this is focused specifically on sideloading apps and not the OS itself, but the logic is still applicable) and https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... (pages 5 and 6 set the context).