3 ms·

I got so excited when I saw the wall of text! I thought, "I will surely be entertained, for there must be some new crazy somewhere in there". But I was wrong.

I got so excited when I saw the wall of text! I thought, "I will surely be entertained, for there must be some new crazy somewhere in there". But I was wrong. You are still going on about old crazy. You still think you can tell someone what their opinion should be, or that they shouldn't use phrases like "exponentially more complex" and "much more complex" without them being incorrectly and repeatedly accused of being contradictory. And you still think that the confused folks in this thread understand the distinction between "local variable object references" and "the objects they reference", even though you yourself are referring to Solipsism's thread in which he does not understand that even after translating it to a language he is more familiar with? Sorry mate. But don't despair, I'll give you one more shot. But bring some new crazy please, and shorten up your ramblings a bit. Or I'm afraid I'm going to lose interest :(

mannykannot 11y ago
It's good to have the old JJ back! - the one who wasn't afraid to display his impotent apoplexy. It's so much more entertaining (and probably honest) than the faux bonhomie that you rather heavy-handedly affected in your last few responses. I could tell, somehow, that you were still there. And you return bearing a gift, in the form of your paragraph about Solipsism's comments. Firstly, you are making the logical error of trying to affirm a general claim with a specific instance. This means that the example cannot possibly settle the matter in your favor, but it can still do damage: your best example of the helpfulness of C++ in explaining Java argument-passing is a case where someone used C++ and got it wrong. This is risible, and your statement about Solipsism's familiarity with C++ only makes it more so. Thanks, JJ! While your act of self-implosion makes my opinion moot, I personally would advise Solipsism to read Eslaught's explanation, with special attention to the first paragraph of his last post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285) Beyond that, I see you are again trying to rewrite this thread by repeating a couple of excuses that have already been effectively refuted: "it's just my opinion" and "it's just conversation." You seem to think that calling a statement an opinion immunizes it from being wrong, but it doesn't work that way. An opinion (or set of them) that is self-contradictory is wrong, and similarly, so is an opinion that is contrary to established fact. These opinions are not even worth giving any further consideration; notable examples include flat- and hollow-earth theories, and creationism. So, putting aside for the moment your self-serving attempt to have everything except your mistakes taken literally, even a 'conversational' reading of "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all" finds that you are claiming a stack-frame based explanation will necessarily be inordinately complicated, and even more so when read in its original context (including your precursor posts.) So when you judged (in what is surely a minority self-serving opinion) that Eslaught's explanation was only "slightly" more complex than a C++-based one, you tacitly admitted that your original 'opinion' doesn't hold water. As soon as I pointed out that you had done this, you changed your opinion of Eslaught's explanation, now claiming that it was invalid in some way. Not only was this itself a change in your stated opinion (and a dead giveaway that you knew this to be so), but you created a contradiction with your first evaluation of Eslaught's explanation: if it is being judged as slightly more complicated than the one you prefer, then it is has already passed muster (and nobody but you would question that, anyway.) This is just one more example of how your attempt to claim you have made no mistakes has led you into making more. But the idea that you are merely presenting your opinion is itself an attempt to rewrite the record. Your original claim was to have made no mistakes, and you only tried to pass your mistakes off as opinion, and thereby claim for them an imaginary immunity from being evaluated, once you realized your factual claims did not stand up. For example, take the clause following "because" in the first quote above. In the context of its use (i.e, following "because"), it has only one purpose: you are presenting this as a basis in fact for your claim of complexity (and also perhaps that you meant 'exponentially' literally, even though it doesn't work as such; whether you are a reliable reporter of your opinions is an issue we will get to later (hint: you are not even a reliable reporter of what is in the record for all to see.)) The 'because' clause is a factual claim refuted by Eslaught, and this in turn shows that even if the cause before 'because' is taken 'conversationally', the statement as a whole is contrary to fact. We can tell where you know you are wrong by your repeated avoidance of the issue, and the above "because" clause and Eslaught's explanation are two of the more blatant and repeated cases (the latter after your backfiring attempt to dismiss it.) Because we can see that you know you are wrong, and yet continue to insinuate that my refutations are faulty without daring to make definitive claims, we have to conclude that you are probably dissembling, which in turn means that we cannot necessarily take any of your statements about what your opinions were at face value, and can only go on what you wrote - which is the way it started anyway, despite your attempt to rewrite this discussion as one about your opinions.
- jjnoakes 11y ago
  The entertainment value asymptotically approaches zero for me when your updates are this sporadic, verbose, and vapid. I'll assume you are done dancing, given the continued weakening of your performance. But if I am mistaken, and you do abandon your current trajectory for something new and interesting, perhaps I'll come watch again. It's a shame, because I did so enjoy your early work. Seeing someone adopt such an arrogant position, only to flail about for this long in a spectacular display of nothing at all... well schadenfreude is the word I would choose for it. Don't give up.
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    How sweet of you! No sooner did I mention how enjoyable it was to see your impotent apoplexy return, than you let loose another volley (I hope this doesn't come across as churlish, but I have to say that while the impotence is unparalleled, the apoplexy is not quite at the level it reached before you realized you were signalling your frustration at having your every argument refuted.) On the subject of arguments, I see that this is the first time in I-can't-be-bothered-to-count that you have you have not tried to insinuate (without an actual argument) that the points I made in my preceding post are invalid (IIRC, the last time you tried an actual argument, it was the fiasco in which you ended up attempting to pass off 'slightly' as a conversational synonym for 'exponential'.) Could it be that you have finally realized what Mark Twain was going on about in his well-known aphorism about keeping quiet or removing doubt? Or, after having taken another turn around the bowl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430), will you once again repeat the same old insinuations that failed before? My money is on the latter. If you are unsure where to start, may I suggest (once again) that you attempt an actual explanation (as opposed to either merely insinuating that there is an explanation to be found somewhere, or attempting to rewrite your original claims as something completely different) as to why you think Eslaught's explanation does not refute your original claim about the complexity of all stack-frame-based explanations?

mannykannot 11y ago

It's good to have the old JJ back! - the one who wasn't afraid to display his impotent apoplexy. It's so much more entertaining (and probably honest) than the faux bonhomie that you rather heavy-handedly affected in your last few responses. I could tell, somehow, that you were still there. And you return bearing a gift, in the form of your paragraph about Solipsism's comments. Firstly, you are making the logical error of trying to affirm a general claim with a specific instance. This means that the example cannot possibly settle the matter in your favor, but it can still do damage: your best example of the helpfulness of C++ in explaining Java argument-passing is a case where someone used C++ and got it wrong. This is risible, and your statement about Solipsism's familiarity with C++ only makes it more so. Thanks, JJ! While your act of self-implosion makes my opinion moot, I personally would advise Solipsism to read Eslaught's explanation, with special attention to the first paragraph of his last post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249285) Beyond that, I see you are again trying to rewrite this thread by repeating a couple of excuses that have already been effectively refuted: "it's just my opinion" and "it's just conversation." You seem to think that calling a statement an opinion immunizes it from being wrong, but it doesn't work that way. An opinion (or set of them) that is self-contradictory is wrong, and similarly, so is an opinion that is contrary to established fact. These opinions are not even worth giving any further consideration; notable examples include flat- and hollow-earth theories, and creationism. So, putting aside for the moment your self-serving attempt to have everything except your mistakes taken literally, even a 'conversational' reading of "Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all" finds that you are claiming a stack-frame based explanation will necessarily be inordinately complicated, and even more so when read in its original context (including your precursor posts.) So when you judged (in what is surely a minority self-serving opinion) that Eslaught's explanation was only "slightly" more complex than a C++-based one, you tacitly admitted that your original 'opinion' doesn't hold water. As soon as I pointed out that you had done this, you changed your opinion of Eslaught's explanation, now claiming that it was invalid in some way. Not only was this itself a change in your stated opinion (and a dead giveaway that you knew this to be so), but you created a contradiction with your first evaluation of Eslaught's explanation: if it is being judged as slightly more complicated than the one you prefer, then it is has already passed muster (and nobody but you would question that, anyway.) This is just one more example of how your attempt to claim you have made no mistakes has led you into making more. But the idea that you are merely presenting your opinion is itself an attempt to rewrite the record. Your original claim was to have made no mistakes, and you only tried to pass your mistakes off as opinion, and thereby claim for them an imaginary immunity from being evaluated, once you realized your factual claims did not stand up. For example, take the clause following "because" in the first quote above. In the context of its use (i.e, following "because"), it has only one purpose: you are presenting this as a basis in fact for your claim of complexity (and also perhaps that you meant 'exponentially' literally, even though it doesn't work as such; whether you are a reliable reporter of your opinions is an issue we will get to later (hint: you are not even a reliable reporter of what is in the record for all to see.)) The 'because' clause is a factual claim refuted by Eslaught, and this in turn shows that even if the cause before 'because' is taken 'conversationally', the statement as a whole is contrary to fact. We can tell where you know you are wrong by your repeated avoidance of the issue, and the above "because" clause and Eslaught's explanation are two of the more blatant and repeated cases (the latter after your backfiring attempt to dismiss it.) Because we can see that you know you are wrong, and yet continue to insinuate that my refutations are faulty without daring to make definitive claims, we have to conclude that you are probably dissembling, which in turn means that we cannot necessarily take any of your statements about what your opinions were at face value, and can only go on what you wrote - which is the way it started anyway, despite your attempt to rewrite this discussion as one about your opinions.

jjnoakes 11y ago
The entertainment value asymptotically approaches zero for me when your updates are this sporadic, verbose, and vapid. I'll assume you are done dancing, given the continued weakening of your performance. But if I am mistaken, and you do abandon your current trajectory for something new and interesting, perhaps I'll come watch again. It's a shame, because I did so enjoy your early work. Seeing someone adopt such an arrogant position, only to flail about for this long in a spectacular display of nothing at all... well schadenfreude is the word I would choose for it. Don't give up.
- mannykannot 11y ago
  How sweet of you! No sooner did I mention how enjoyable it was to see your impotent apoplexy return, than you let loose another volley (I hope this doesn't come across as churlish, but I have to say that while the impotence is unparalleled, the apoplexy is not quite at the level it reached before you realized you were signalling your frustration at having your every argument refuted.) On the subject of arguments, I see that this is the first time in I-can't-be-bothered-to-count that you have you have not tried to insinuate (without an actual argument) that the points I made in my preceding post are invalid (IIRC, the last time you tried an actual argument, it was the fiasco in which you ended up attempting to pass off 'slightly' as a conversational synonym for 'exponential'.) Could it be that you have finally realized what Mark Twain was going on about in his well-known aphorism about keeping quiet or removing doubt? Or, after having taken another turn around the bowl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430), will you once again repeat the same old insinuations that failed before? My money is on the latter. If you are unsure where to start, may I suggest (once again) that you attempt an actual explanation (as opposed to either merely insinuating that there is an explanation to be found somewhere, or attempting to rewrite your original claims as something completely different) as to why you think Eslaught's explanation does not refute your original claim about the complexity of all stack-frame-based explanations?