> At this point, I don't even feel obligated to remember it all -- I can trust myself enough. We do that with "evil" people in our lives, too. We don't remember every dirty detail. We remember that there were a bunch of things, and that overall, we had it at some point. I save the conclusion and the checksums and that's enough.
> If you think I'm operating on a premise, instead of having come to a conclusion, how is that not you operating on a premise?
A mental conclusion can be a discussion premise. It doesn't invalidate your conclusion to say it should be a conclusion not a premise, because you're asserting a premise in a discussion which you are not (yet) supporting.
Also consider that you have seen eleven years of data points and experiences from the point of view of a small subset of users; there could perhaps be an equivalent cache of positive datapoints which tend to be significantly less interesting to report on.
Thus, supporting your point with concrete examples is how you contribute to a discussion, because then you and any adversaries can challenge you on the merits of your argument.
That's what the conclusion/premise separation is about.
> Also consider that you have seen eleven years of data points and experiences from the point of view of a small subset of users; there could perhaps be an equivalent cache of positive datapoints which tend to be significantly less interesting to report on.
You know what a thief can be like? 99.99% of the time, they don't steal. They sleep, they brush their teeth, they do all sorts of stuff, and every 2 weeks they take all the savings from an elderly woman.
How often you do need to see someone doing that to consider them a thief? Would you really care about any positive stories after seeing what you saw?
> That's what the conclusion/premise separation is about.
You can't speak for that other person. Let them respond for themselves.
> You can't speak for that other person. Let them respond for themselves.
Sounds like you're more interested in competing with someone than talking about ideas.
> Would you really care about any positive stories after seeing what you saw?
...yes? Of course? I don't automatically dehumanize that hypothetical person for their deeds, whether I approve or not, or believe there should be consequences. Like, doesn't Facebook collaborate with law enforcement in tracking down predators and scammers and the like? It's not as simple as "bad. go away."
You should remember enough to make a proper argument, dude. A solid conclusion needs solid support.
> Sounds like you're more interested in competing with someone than talking about ideas.
No, I want to talk about the idea they expressed, not what you read into it. I can only do that with them.
> ...yes? Of course? I don't automatically dehumanize
Who's talking about dehumanizing? How is considering someone a thief dehumanizing?
edit2: Facebook is a company. It can't be dehumanized, it's not a person in the first place. People in it are responsible for what they do. Someone who fought shitty decision and then left is different than someone who, say, hires a firm to smear critics. That goes without saying as far as I'm concerned. But my thief example refers to Facebook, you see? Just because apparently my argument isn't easy to follow for everyone, doesn't mean it doesn't stand.
So, where is the dehumanization? Who is being dehumanized when someone comes to the conclusion that FB is on the whole "bad"? Because we're not appreciating all the good, supposedly? When someone is a thief, or a murderer, or a company is, then all their fantastic properties they may have is interesting for their personal friends. But not to the police, judges, or wider society. They know that the person has probably a lot of reasons for how they became that way, and nice sides to them, but they already have their own friends, it's simply completely out of scope of the subject at hand, unless it's directly related to the "crime".
> Like, doesn't Facebook collaborate with law enforcement in tracking down predators and scammers and the like?
Yes, and that thief who sometimes robs elderly women who then freeze to death outside, also has child, and he's very great with that child, and he's singing in a choir, and all sorts of great things. But you don't judge a meal by the freshest ingredients, but by the most spoiled. You judge a person by their worst deeds, and likewise a company. Again, we're talking about judgement with a capital justice here, not being friends, thinking we're better, or thinking they're evil and we're good, or any of that.
> You should remember enough to make a proper argument, dude.
I think my argument is just fine, and it even seems to get to you a little.
edit: And what post of mine are you even referring to? Where did I make an argument without examples? I was responding to someone else complaining that everyone who thinks Facebook is "evil" (let's just say bad) is operating on a premise. I was responding to that general point, I'm not decebalus1, who in turn didn't have "Facebook is evil" as their main point either.
Their main point, if you would follow the guidelines, hasn't been addressed by anyone. Their main point is the first two paragraphs, the rest is bonus. How come you are trying to teach how to "make a proper argument, dude", but didn't notice that?
Oh, and clicking buttons instead of reasoning kinda gives away who is interested in discussion, and who is interested in dehumanization and censorship.
The interesting thing is that in the first few seasons NCIS got a lot of the computer tech mostly right (modulo some dramatic license regarding easy access to every possible data source the government might have) but as they relied more on Tim the IT guy as a convenient oracle for moving the plot along it quickly dove into "enhance, enhance, enhance..." mode.
At the time I was super enthusiastic to try out (many years ago at this point), it wasn't open source so I decided to wait it out.
Later, I decided to try it out again, but I had to choose between Phobos and Tango. I didn't have time to evaluate them so I bought a book on Tango. I shelved it because it seemed like a lot of stuff was still changing.
When I tried again a couple of years later I wasn't sure whether to use DMD, GDC, or LDC. I didn't have the time to evaluate the compiler implementations, I just wanted to poke at it and try it out, and wanted to look at a bunch of examples before I jumped in. Three compilers made it a pain in the butt so I put it on the backburner and forgot to ever come back.
At this point D had asked too much of me to figure out how I wanted to use it, three times over, and I wasn't about to commit myself to researching the implementations instead of just hacking so I abandoned D despite initially falling in love with it. By that point, other good native C++ alternatives had matured - Go, Rust, and Swift – for different use cases.
After giving it three shots to give me a simple and consistent development experience I'll probably never try D again.
Meanwhile, Rust has one compiler and I have multiple choices of IDEs which all support the toolchain - I just set it and go and it tends to do just what I want because all that common surface area in the Rust community gets improved for everyone.
D is a great language hampered by a depressingly frustrating developer experience, and as such until that changes it is deeply hurting its own competitiveness with everyone who isn't committed to using it and making it work for them right off the bat (many many people).
I also know one FAANG company that invested in D is seeing a very noticeable shift towards Rust instead.
Not the same.. that breach was way before the acquisition, you can't conclude from that breach that MS development or security practices were lacking ..
Because large companies give the promos as trailing indicators of performance, meaning that to be promoted requires an acknowledgment of prior sustained performance at that level. Entitlement to the level is actually accurate and above board.
It can and has been done multiple times in the past - AsyncDisplayKit -> Texture is the one that immediately comes to mind as it happened after open-sourcing.
Yes. But if iMessage is presented as the success and as an example of what Google could have had part of if they only hadn't switched to hangouts, I'm not sure how it works as evidence since google switched to be more like iMessage.
I'm not arguing that I think a system should or should not be open, just that I don't understand how the argument that was presented is supposed to work.
All communication systems are in the process of flipping back to closed systems.
The major open ones (mail and POTS) are either going away as telcos divest and people stop answering the phone or consolidating into a small number of big players as what we see with email.
The 2030s will probably bring back the future equivalent of Telex
> If you think I'm operating on a premise, instead of having come to a conclusion, how is that not you operating on a premise?
A mental conclusion can be a discussion premise. It doesn't invalidate your conclusion to say it should be a conclusion not a premise, because you're asserting a premise in a discussion which you are not (yet) supporting.
Also consider that you have seen eleven years of data points and experiences from the point of view of a small subset of users; there could perhaps be an equivalent cache of positive datapoints which tend to be significantly less interesting to report on.
Thus, supporting your point with concrete examples is how you contribute to a discussion, because then you and any adversaries can challenge you on the merits of your argument.
That's what the conclusion/premise separation is about.