zahlman

26 ms·

601.
by zahlman 3mo ago
The kid doesn't seem to be doing any actual teaching here. Cool that a two-year-old can say "exponential", though, I guess. > “Dada! Degree three. No Euler circuit.” …Oh. Okay, fine, weird rhetorical device but you do you.
602.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> gatherings where they all proclaim that their beliefs are true even if they don't seriously believe them? What on Earth are you referring to? What gatherings? What beliefs? What proclamations? What evidence of insincerity?
603.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> It's not the bias the problem, it's the conviction of being better and "less wrong" than the rest of us. There is not any such conviction. This is just your interpretation of a domain name, which is not intended tha
604.
by zahlman 3mo ago
There isn't actually such a thing as "rationalism". This is a label applied from outside to those who are trying to apply the concepts of rationality, or those who try to get into rationality but don't actually understan
605.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> You’re trying to lawyer your way around this very plain fact It's not lawyering. I'm extremely well aware of the impedance mismatch. It wasn't created by the community. It was created by the site software failing to alig
606.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> But the points system was fundamentally inextricable from the site’s operation, and the officiousness and arrogance it rewarded meant it could never be as good as anybody hoped it would be. Er... yes.jpg ? You seem to be under the impr
607.
by zahlman 3mo ago
If you knew how it worked, you would have understood that answering questions is only indirectly about "helping people", by hopefully building something that third parties can make use of later. The objective is not "the OP
608.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Exercising your self-determination in a way that is obviously noxious But we weren't, and it wasn't. People were overwhelmingly trying to be polite and factual about what needed to happen for a question to be reopened, the en
609.
by zahlman 3mo ago
To be fair, https://github.com/python/cpython has over 5k open github issues, and that's still generally considered fairly reliably technology even if a lot of HN users seem to hate it.
610.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Power usage and heat scale non-linearly with cpu utilization I don't doubt this, but I would love details and citations here.
611.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Another human being took time from their life to try and help you By copying and pasting my question into ChatGPT, and then copying and pasting the answer back? It would have been more helpful, and still trivial, to remind me that Chat
612.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> made people less accurate > sudy Intentional?
613.
by zahlman 3mo ago
They have gone along with the site dying, as was always realistically going to happen, even if it took people a while to realize. As one of the people doing a lot of what you (in my view very misguidedly) consider "killing", I&#x2
614.
by zahlman 3mo ago
When you submit a documentation PR to an open-source project, do you put your name (real, screen or otherwise) in the section of documentation that you add? No; you let Git put it in the commit history. (And if you have to discuss it, you p
615.
by zahlman 3mo ago
I think I replied to you earlier about it, but to reiterate: the site was going downhill for years before the founders left, and there is abundant evidence that the founders wanted exactly what mark-r claims.
616.
by zahlman 3mo ago
That's the crux of it, though. What conversation ? Stack Overflow was created specifically to avoid conversation. Hence the treatment of comments, and the fact the posts on the page consist of one question and everything else bein
617.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> i got stung by exactly this. > i saw some of my early questions rewritten because some idiot mod that had not touched grass in a while thought that some words were better suited for stackoverflow. You came to a place where the terms
618.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> and its strict "no remotely duplicate-esque questions ever" policy meant that answers to common questions just got more and more outdated as time went on. No; answers got outdated because of people not doing what they were su
619.
by zahlman 3mo ago
I'm used to enjoying your comments here, but this is an unusually bad take, and frankly personally hurtful. None of this was ever about that kind of power or control, and hearing constant accusations to the contrary was one of the thin
620.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Very well put. Except they didn't think they were "picking a forum format". Forums with that style of voting were still kinda rare at the time (Reddit was young at SO's date of creation) and the Q&A formatting was su
621.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> They don't acknowledge this was a problem. Most people who came to SO wanted the site to be something it fundamentally wasn't supposed to be; that it in fact specifically existed not to be, to provide an alternative, because
622.
by zahlman 3mo ago
They have been. Very aggressively. The community hates it. Their attempts have been ham-handed and offer zero value added over putting your question into chatgpt dot com instead of the SO submission form; but they would be hated anyway.
623.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> The point is who decides. If you ask a question and I flag it as a dupe, I might think the answers on the other question apply to yours, but only you know whether they solved your problem or not. The site is not about solving your pr
624.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> The rules changed, a lot. No, they didn't. I joined in late 2010 to post a question, and posted multiple answers within an hour of that. As far as I can research, it has always been like that. 50 reputation is required to comment,
625.
by zahlman 3mo ago
The community arrived at, drafted and enforce policy forbidding AI-generated content; this usually meant answers because that was the obvious use case for LLMs. (We were getting absolutely flooded from day 1 with really obviously LLM-genera
626.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Hoewever, I take exception to the suggestion that the mere existence of a rule means that it will be applied wrong. I won't speak for nchmy, but I didn't intend to suggest that.
627.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Yes, because there's no reason not to. A Wikipedia article (even a long one) is "narrowly and up-to-the-point concentrated" on a single concept . There maybe a lot to say about dogs, but https://en.wikipedia.org&#
628.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Atwood and Spolsky were quite explicit, on multiple occasions, about what they wanted the site to be. That vision was not compatible with having a site with millions of users and millions of questions, because the masses simply aren't
629.
by zahlman 3mo ago
> Mod vs non-mod-user-with-edit-privileges is a semantic difference from a user perspective. If your lack of interest in how the existing community works is that profound, then you could hardly be said to have a good-faith interest in j
630.
by zahlman 3mo ago
Your claim is that "quite literally every person you interact with professionally has an anecdote about" the internal mental state of other people. Even if everyone else on the Internet thinks a person has a certain belief or mot

More ›