7 ms·

I wouldn't know. There might be, which is why I've asked you multiple times to explain the issue to me and yet you have neglected to do so.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CRConrad 5y ago
If you can't understand something on your own, you might be grateful for an explanation, but nobody actually owes you one.
- stale2002 5y ago
  The problem is that other people are making vague claims, without actually substantiating them. If someone makes vague claims like that, they deserve to be dismissed. It is on you to state your concerns clearly, not on other people to read between the lines.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    One man's "having to read between the lines" is another's "it's all there in black on white".
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > One man's "having to read between the lines" Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear. If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating. Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you. I'm just saying that at least to me, >>> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 ] and, at the latest, >>> they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 ] felt perfectly clear. That's yanonninator's [sp?] whole beef, right there (twice over), AFAICS. What's not to understand about that?
        stale2002 5y ago
        > What's not to understand about that? Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given. Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C". Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? If you actually make an argument, then other people can judge if they agree that things X, Y, and Z are bad, or they can judge if they agree or disagree with the consequences of A,B, and C. But, when someone just says "They have a board seat", they are making a unopinionated factual statement, as opposed to actually justifying what the tweets intend to imply, which is that them having a board seat is bad for certain reasons which are unstated. Unfortunately, though, I expect the reasons as for why the moral arguments are unstated, is because the person doesn't actually have any moral arguments. Instead, they likely just want to imply that certain things are wrong, without actually having to defend or give reasons as for why the things are at all bad.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? Yes and no: Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact". But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't see that to many people, "They have [bought] a board seat" is not just an "amoral, unopinionated fact" but in itself already a moral punchline to engage with. There is no need for any tweets to "intend to imply" anything. Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant: That's just not how shit is supposed to work, i.e. wrong in itself. And frankly, it's a bit baffling to me how you and those who argue like you seem to have such a hard time understanding this view. I mean, it's one thing not to agree with it, but you're all coming off as if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. Makes me wonder if you're seriously so blind, or if it's some underhanded debating tactic. Whichever it is, in my eyes it seriously weakens your argument.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CRConrad 5y ago

If you can't understand something on your own, you might be grateful for an explanation, but nobody actually owes you one.

stale2002 5y ago
The problem is that other people are making vague claims, without actually substantiating them. If someone makes vague claims like that, they deserve to be dismissed. It is on you to state your concerns clearly, not on other people to read between the lines.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  One man's "having to read between the lines" is another's "it's all there in black on white".
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > One man's "having to read between the lines" Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear. If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating. Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you. I'm just saying that at least to me, >>> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 ] and, at the latest, >>> they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 ] felt perfectly clear. That's yanonninator's [sp?] whole beef, right there (twice over), AFAICS. What's not to understand about that?
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > What's not to understand about that? Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given. Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C". Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? If you actually make an argument, then other people can judge if they agree that things X, Y, and Z are bad, or they can judge if they agree or disagree with the consequences of A,B, and C. But, when someone just says "They have a board seat", they are making a unopinionated factual statement, as opposed to actually justifying what the tweets intend to imply, which is that them having a board seat is bad for certain reasons which are unstated. Unfortunately, though, I expect the reasons as for why the moral arguments are unstated, is because the person doesn't actually have any moral arguments. Instead, they likely just want to imply that certain things are wrong, without actually having to defend or give reasons as for why the things are at all bad.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? Yes and no: Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact". But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't see that to many people, "They have [bought] a board seat" is not just an "amoral, unopinionated fact" but in itself already a moral punchline to engage with. There is no need for any tweets to "intend to imply" anything. Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant: That's just not how shit is supposed to work, i.e. wrong in itself. And frankly, it's a bit baffling to me how you and those who argue like you seem to have such a hard time understanding this view. I mean, it's one thing not to agree with it, but you're all coming off as if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. Makes me wonder if you're seriously so blind, or if it's some underhanded debating tactic. Whichever it is, in my eyes it seriously weakens your argument.