2 ms·

To have an enjoyable conversation with an interested colleague, rather than someone whose tone is "shut up and listen to your elders." Besides, having a crotch

To have an enjoyable conversation with an interested colleague, rather than someone whose tone is "shut up and listen to your elders." Besides, having a crotchety back-and-forth makes for boring reading, and we should be respectful of the community. Thanks for the pieces you've provided so far. I'll bring up my objections elsewhere. Hopefully anyone who's been having my same concerns will be able to do the same.

jacquesm 12y ago
Let me try to explain what is going wrong here: You argue that something is impossible but at the same time you outline your ignorance. The normal position for being ignorant is to study the subject, not to argue that something is impossible. It's like saying a moonshot never happened because you couldn't do it yourself. There are lots of things that each of us individually can not do, but collectively we can do amazingly complex things. The specialization required takes time and effort. If you're unwilling to put in the time and/or make the effort then you should not take up positions that tell those that did make that effort what they should not be able to do according to you. If mechanical engineering interests you then maybe you should go and study the subject rather than to take up strong positions like these and to be rigid in your inability to shift on those positions. > I'll bring up my objections elsewhere. Hopefully anyone who's been having my same concerns will be able to do the same. Basically that says that you want to argue, not learn and that you'll only take what agrees with your viewpoint.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Yer mother's a landlubber and yer father smells faintly of laundry detergent. (Am I doing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8640415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8640415 right?) But no, actually, you smashing huge holes into my logic was exactly what I was hoping for, because that's how ignorance is transcended. I dislike both the peanut gallery and peanuts, so I think I came across wrong. Starting the conversation by vaguely disparaging your merry band of engineers probably wasn't great, but my mind's malleability is play-dough, definitely not steel. Finding someone who agrees with my viewpoint is the most useless thing, both to me and to anyone that might be reading the conversation. Someone with an ability to point out why I'm wrong and to actually debate with me is both rare and valuable. Please try to understand that some people find the basics interesting, so even though you're saying you don't, it's important to kindle that spark. (I still don't see how this is basic, since the entire SpaceX engineering team somehow missed your segmentation approach, or considered it and chose not to pursue it for some reason, but you're probably right. And I have other qualms about the approach, but I don't really trust re-opening this debate without some kind of mutual understanding that we'll focus on the ideas in the debate, not on the people involved.)
Hytosys 12y ago
For what it's worth, I found the exchange to be highly enlightening. Classic case of personality clash! Don't be bummed out.

jacquesm 12y ago

Let me try to explain what is going wrong here: You argue that something is impossible but at the same time you outline your ignorance. The normal position for being ignorant is to study the subject, not to argue that something is impossible. It's like saying a moonshot never happened because you couldn't do it yourself. There are lots of things that each of us individually can not do, but collectively we can do amazingly complex things. The specialization required takes time and effort. If you're unwilling to put in the time and/or make the effort then you should not take up positions that tell those that did make that effort what they should not be able to do according to you. If mechanical engineering interests you then maybe you should go and study the subject rather than to take up strong positions like these and to be rigid in your inability to shift on those positions. > I'll bring up my objections elsewhere. Hopefully anyone who's been having my same concerns will be able to do the same. Basically that says that you want to argue, not learn and that you'll only take what agrees with your viewpoint.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Yer mother's a landlubber and yer father smells faintly of laundry detergent. (Am I doing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8640415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8640415 right?) But no, actually, you smashing huge holes into my logic was exactly what I was hoping for, because that's how ignorance is transcended. I dislike both the peanut gallery and peanuts, so I think I came across wrong. Starting the conversation by vaguely disparaging your merry band of engineers probably wasn't great, but my mind's malleability is play-dough, definitely not steel. Finding someone who agrees with my viewpoint is the most useless thing, both to me and to anyone that might be reading the conversation. Someone with an ability to point out why I'm wrong and to actually debate with me is both rare and valuable. Please try to understand that some people find the basics interesting, so even though you're saying you don't, it's important to kindle that spark. (I still don't see how this is basic, since the entire SpaceX engineering team somehow missed your segmentation approach, or considered it and chose not to pursue it for some reason, but you're probably right. And I have other qualms about the approach, but I don't really trust re-opening this debate without some kind of mutual understanding that we'll focus on the ideas in the debate, not on the people involved.)

Hytosys 12y ago

For what it's worth, I found the exchange to be highly enlightening. Classic case of personality clash! Don't be bummed out.