6 ms·

He couldn't give a single shout out? Considering what a behemoth that book is, that's just poor form!

baddox 13y ago
marktangotango is lying, and almost certainly deliberately. See my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451765.
- adamwong246 13y ago
  ummm... that's kind of a leap of logic. Maybe he just made a simple mistake? Why would someone lie about references in computer science book?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - baddox 13y ago
      I infer that you are claiming me to be a Wolfram-cultist. This is not the case. I think Wolfram is a smart and accomplished guy who tends to be too prideful and single-minded about his own accomplishments. But I'm also someone who is able to spend 3 minutes searching the Internet to determine the validity of extraordinary claims regarding the content of Wolfram's book. I don't have to worship a person to think it's inappropriate to use lies to discredit that person. In fact, the more worthy a person is of being discredited, the more important (and elementary) it is to discredit that person using true statements.
  - baddox 13y ago
    How could that be a "simple mistake"? Either the commenter has read the book, in which case such a lapse in memory is inexcusable in the face of such a strong statement of the book's contents, or the commenter has not read the book or even quickly searched its contents, in which case the lie is the result of deliberate ignorance. If I claimed that the Lord of the Rings trilogy does not contain a character named "Frodo," would you call that a deliberate lie or a simple mistake?
    - nl 13y ago
      If I claimed that the Lord of the Rings trilogy does not contain a character named "Frodo," would you call that a deliberate lie or a simple mistake? I'd call it neither. You'd be wrong, but maybe you were confusing the name, or maybe the book, or maybe it's spelt differently in a different language. Maybe you read it long ago and forgot. Maybe you read a printing done by a little known cult that censored all referenced to hobbits. I have no idea why, but there are an infinite field of possibilities and only some require bad faith.
      - baddox 13y ago
        Or maybe your cat skipped across the keyboard and just happened to type out those exact characters and submit the comment. Fair enough. However, when I read a comment, I tend to infer that it was made intentionally by a human, and that the human intends to claim that the contents of the comment are correct.
        nl 13y ago
        the human intends to claim that the contents of the comment are correct Sure. But I think it is inadvisable to claim to know the reasons or motive behind the comment, and doubly so to claim they are acting in bad faith.
- polynomial 13y ago
  Why do you say deliberately? I don't mean to provoke this thread, but you've made a pretty strong accusation, and you need to either provide evidence, or an apology.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I say deliberately, because it is so specific and so easy to verify. Either the commenter has read the book, in which case such a strong statement could only be confidently made if paired with an extraordinarily bad memory, or the commenter has not read the book (or done a quick search to see if the book contains these references), in which case I consider the lie to be the result of deliberate ignorance.
    - e12e 13y ago
      > in which case I consider the lie to be the result of deliberate ignorance. It's not a lie, if it is the result of ignorance. I'm not even sure what "deliberate ignorance" means in this context: he knowingly doesn't know if Wolfram mentioned this, and guessing he probably did, chooses to say he didn't?
      - baddox 13y ago
        Yes. If he knows that he has never read the book and thus doesn't know what is and isn't in it, then I would consider it a deliberate lie to make a confident claim about the contents of the book.
  - jwmerrill 13y ago
    At this point, it's a facile criticism to say that Wolfram doesn't give enough credit to others. Many people have complained about this. marktangotango extrapolated this trope to assuming that Wolfram doesn't cite the particular authors in question without bothering to check, perhaps because he assumes (incorrectly) that Wolfram never gives credit to others at all. Maybe assuming you can extrapolate a common criticism of a person in any way that occurs to you, and then presenting the extrapolations as fact isn't "lying," but whatever it is, it shouldn't have a very nice name.
- nl 13y ago
  Assume good faith. Mistakes happen.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Not really clear why we should be incentivizing mistakes. "Just say whatever," you might say, "If someone really cared; they'll do the research for you."
    - nl 13y ago
      Who said anything about incentivizing? Corrections and even downvotes are fine. Accusing someone of acting in bad faith is completely different.
    - qbrass 13y ago
      It's the same principle behind Cunningham's law. In this discussion, the mistake was corrected in about an hour and included citations. You can argue the morality of it, but it gets results.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Well, that's a bit silly. I could just apply that same motto to my comment! and then lambast the people accusing me of being errantly hateful.
    - nl 13y ago
      I do apply the same motto to your comment. People shouldn't lambaste you over it either. I believe (hope?) none of my comments in this thread could be regarded has hateful (errantly or otherwise).

marktangotango is lying, and almost certainly deliberately. See my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7451765.

adamwong246 13y ago
ummm... that's kind of a leap of logic. Maybe he just made a simple mistake? Why would someone lie about references in computer science book?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - baddox 13y ago
    I infer that you are claiming me to be a Wolfram-cultist. This is not the case. I think Wolfram is a smart and accomplished guy who tends to be too prideful and single-minded about his own accomplishments. But I'm also someone who is able to spend 3 minutes searching the Internet to determine the validity of extraordinary claims regarding the content of Wolfram's book. I don't have to worship a person to think it's inappropriate to use lies to discredit that person. In fact, the more worthy a person is of being discredited, the more important (and elementary) it is to discredit that person using true statements.
- baddox 13y ago
  How could that be a "simple mistake"? Either the commenter has read the book, in which case such a lapse in memory is inexcusable in the face of such a strong statement of the book's contents, or the commenter has not read the book or even quickly searched its contents, in which case the lie is the result of deliberate ignorance. If I claimed that the Lord of the Rings trilogy does not contain a character named "Frodo," would you call that a deliberate lie or a simple mistake?
  - nl 13y ago
    If I claimed that the Lord of the Rings trilogy does not contain a character named "Frodo," would you call that a deliberate lie or a simple mistake? I'd call it neither. You'd be wrong, but maybe you were confusing the name, or maybe the book, or maybe it's spelt differently in a different language. Maybe you read it long ago and forgot. Maybe you read a printing done by a little known cult that censored all referenced to hobbits. I have no idea why, but there are an infinite field of possibilities and only some require bad faith.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Or maybe your cat skipped across the keyboard and just happened to type out those exact characters and submit the comment. Fair enough. However, when I read a comment, I tend to infer that it was made intentionally by a human, and that the human intends to claim that the contents of the comment are correct.
      - nl 13y ago
        the human intends to claim that the contents of the comment are correct Sure. But I think it is inadvisable to claim to know the reasons or motive behind the comment, and doubly so to claim they are acting in bad faith.
polynomial 13y ago
Why do you say deliberately? I don't mean to provoke this thread, but you've made a pretty strong accusation, and you need to either provide evidence, or an apology.
- baddox 13y ago
  I say deliberately, because it is so specific and so easy to verify. Either the commenter has read the book, in which case such a strong statement could only be confidently made if paired with an extraordinarily bad memory, or the commenter has not read the book (or done a quick search to see if the book contains these references), in which case I consider the lie to be the result of deliberate ignorance.
  - e12e 13y ago
    > in which case I consider the lie to be the result of deliberate ignorance. It's not a lie, if it is the result of ignorance. I'm not even sure what "deliberate ignorance" means in this context: he knowingly doesn't know if Wolfram mentioned this, and guessing he probably did, chooses to say he didn't?
    - baddox 13y ago
      Yes. If he knows that he has never read the book and thus doesn't know what is and isn't in it, then I would consider it a deliberate lie to make a confident claim about the contents of the book.
- jwmerrill 13y ago
  At this point, it's a facile criticism to say that Wolfram doesn't give enough credit to others. Many people have complained about this. marktangotango extrapolated this trope to assuming that Wolfram doesn't cite the particular authors in question without bothering to check, perhaps because he assumes (incorrectly) that Wolfram never gives credit to others at all. Maybe assuming you can extrapolate a common criticism of a person in any way that occurs to you, and then presenting the extrapolations as fact isn't "lying," but whatever it is, it shouldn't have a very nice name.
nl 13y ago
Assume good faith. Mistakes happen.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Not really clear why we should be incentivizing mistakes. "Just say whatever," you might say, "If someone really cared; they'll do the research for you."
  - nl 13y ago
    Who said anything about incentivizing? Corrections and even downvotes are fine. Accusing someone of acting in bad faith is completely different.
  - qbrass 13y ago
    It's the same principle behind Cunningham's law. In this discussion, the mistake was corrected in about an hour and included citations. You can argue the morality of it, but it gets results.
- baddox 13y ago
  Well, that's a bit silly. I could just apply that same motto to my comment! and then lambast the people accusing me of being errantly hateful.
  - nl 13y ago
    I do apply the same motto to your comment. People shouldn't lambaste you over it either. I believe (hope?) none of my comments in this thread could be regarded has hateful (errantly or otherwise).