14 ms·
Are you referring to the author specifically? Or a specific hypocritical person you know? If you're making a general statement about groups of online people you
by dmm 4mo ago
Are you referring to the author specifically? Or a specific hypocritical person you know? If you're making a general statement about groups of online people you might be falling for the group attribution error[1], where the characteristics of an individual are assumed to be reflective of the whole group.
In any case, two things can be simultaneously true:
1. Writing code is not the bottleneck, as in we can develop features faster than they can be deployed.
2. It's annoying and disruptive to be interrupted when doing work that requires deep focus.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error
- knollimar 4mo agoOr just goomba fallacy
- onemoresoop 4mo ago[flagged]
- sermah 4mo agotil https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy
- SV_BubbleTime 4mo agoThat’s kind of just strawman with an origin story isn’t it?
- _diyar 4mo agoNo because the goomba is the average of two real opinions, and the strawman is a distortion/reduction of any opinion such that its easy to argue against.
- SV_BubbleTime 4mo agoAh, ok, so two real opinions made into a distortion. Right, I see how very dissimilar to an origin story of a strawman that is…
- nkingsy 4mo agoIf I only had a brain...
- tadfisher 4mo agoMore like a superposition of two opinions.
- Cthulhu_ 4mo agoSchrodinger's Goomba?
- wuliwong 4mo agoI think the Goomba is distinct. Strawman is disingenuously representing an argument, Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app.
- Jensson 4mo ago> Goomba is assuming contradictions are coming from the same person, presumably b/c it's coming to the Goomba through the same app. Its because it comes from the same political faction. In general people are open about A when A seems palatable, and openly B when B seems palatable, but they almost never admit to do that when its obviously wrong to do so. That is the rational part of the fallacy, even if these are different sets of people you can still tell they are biased since they never appear in the threads where its obvious they are in the wrong. For example, lets say in a thread where a white cop shoots a black guy you find a lot of republicans say "this is just statistics, nothing to see here". Then in another thread where a black cop shoots a white guy republicans pour in and argue this must be racism and we should investigate! Maybe it isn't the same set of people, but its still a strong sign of problematic bias that they only choose to speak up in those particular threads and not the others. Every political side everywhere does this, and that is why people started calling that out.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo agoIs it true that they don't appear in the threads where you feel it's obvious they're in the wrong? Or do they just get upvoted less in those threads so you don't see it when they do appear?
- jmalicki 4mo agoIt's almost as if factions are made up of different people with different opinions in a loose alliance. But nah, clearly they're all goombas.
- mothballed 4mo ago
- scarecrowbob 4mo agoOn some level, yes, but having words to describe sub-sets can be useful too. A "human" is just a "featherless biped", after all? I think the Goomba Fallacy captures something helpful to me- it's helpful to know the origin of a straw man if you want to un-stuff one.
- bluefirebrand 4mo agoI know this is off topic but I cannot resist. It's very funny to read a comment about un-stuffing a straw man written by "scarecrowbob" Gave me a good laugh, thank you. :)
- knollimar 4mo agoI learned here like a week ago so I'm here to evangelize.
- pydry 4mo agoThis was a perfect example.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- robocat 4mo agoThe collective smarts on the Internet can't come up with a better name that might help our brains tag the concept? Although at least it has some cross-cultural references. Why is naming so hard.
- PakG1 4mo agoMemes help things to become popular. I guess the question would be how popular would it have been without the meme name? We'll never know.
- nemomarx 4mo agoWeirdly, the meme wasn't a goomba originally. The goomba edit just got way more popular?
- kevinmgranger 4mo agoOr the alternative explanation: there simply is no better name for it
- SkyBelow 4mo agoSometimes there are two groups of people who have different opinions that don't interact, but given the extent they take up the same platform and don't seem to see each other, I'm not sure it is really a fallacy even then. First, it becomes possible for people who have a double standard to hide behind this. One can try to track an individual's stance, but a lot of internet etiquette seems to be based on the idea of not looking up a person's history to see if they are being contradictory. (And while being hypocritical doesn't necessarily invalidate an argument, it can help to indicate when someone is arguing it bad faith and it is a waste of time as someone will simply use different axioms to reach otherwise contradictory conclusions when they favor each.) Second, I think there is the ability to call out a group as being hypocritical, even when there are two sub groups. That one group supports A generally and another group supports B generally (and assuming that A + B is hypocritical), but they stop supporting it when it would bring them into conflict indicates a level of acceptance by the change in behavior. Each individual is too hard to measure this (maybe they are tired today, or distracted, or didn't even see it), but as a group, we can still measure the overall direction. So if a website ends up being very vocally in support of two contradictory positions, I think there is still a valid argument to be made about contradicting opinions, and the goomba fallacy is itself a fallacy. Edit: Removed example, might be too distracting to bring up an otherwise off topic issue as an example.
- plorg 4mo agoI believe in A, I don't take a strong position on B, I am in coalition with people who believe in B and don't take a strong position on A, we both believe in C, D, E, and F, which some other people believe in with differing weights. Browbeating me about position B (or, the most useless kind of Internet banter, complaining about me and my hypocritical position on A+B to your friends who oppose both in a likewise contradictory way, in some venue I've never heard of) is not about making people reevaluate positions, it's about negative factionalism. The only reason it might not fit the familiar categorization of "fallacy" is that you would never use it in rational debate, either in arguing with another person or in reasoning out your own position.
- SkyBelow 4mo ago
- aaron695 4mo ago[dead]
- the_gipsy 4mo agoYou're making a strawman
- coldtea 4mo agoIf so, I've seen that strawman living and breathing, and saying the first thing before, and the other thing now, several times.
- nottorp 4mo ago> 2. It's annoying and disruptive to be interrupted when doing work that requires deep focus. Steering a LLM also requires deep focus. Unless you want to end up on accidentally quadratic or have a CVE named after your project.
- loeg 4mo agoHow can it? You prompt it, then wait minutes+ for it to come back. It's the opposite of flow state.
- nottorp 4mo agoFlow comes after when you verify what it did...
- allannienhuis 4mo agoI get much better results the more thought I put into crafting my prompt. including using llms to help create that prompt. There's definitely a declining rate of return on that time, but thinking about the problem and carefully describing the context can take fairly deep thought. I do think it's in shorter bursts than when doing all of the work, but I get that same feeling of 'bah, where was I?' if I get interrupted while creating the prompt for a more complex feature. On the other hand, I spend a lot less time in flow state while debugging - it's way easier to describe a bug to an llm (often can just paste in the exception or link to error log).
- rodrigodlu 4mo agoI'm using my ADHD hyper focus skills while flagging issues that the LLM is doing. Reading 10x more code than before puts me straight into the zone. (In a language that I find interesting: Elixir) My own process is improving so much that I had only one bug last week that was fixed immediately after the error tracker caught. But yeah I feel more tired sooner. So it's oneto three hyper focus zones per day, just like before. The difference is that I enter faster, and now I'm not afraid of leaving the task and resuming later, since I can just ask for a summary of what we did so far. I'm using two different models from two different providers to cross check the work tho. I'm very good with bad smells I guess, after years supervising less experienced developers since early days in my long career.
- coldtea 4mo ago>Writing code is not the bottleneck, as in we can develop features faster than they can be deployed. That's an organizational issue due to over-regulation, bureucracy, too many stakeholders each with their own irrelevant opinion, etc. Startups or FOSS projects without the above absolutely can't "develop features faster than they can be deployed", and usually have a huge backlog of bugs and features they'd like to have, but never got around to.
- physPop 4mo agoIf you don't have stakeholders I contend you probably don't have a product, or you're building the bare minimum MVP which upon becoming a product will be woefully inadequate, generating the aforementioned bottleneck.
- coldtea 4mo agoI said "too many". And mostly meant people with a say, as in "design by executive board/committee" as opposite to someone or a small team with a vision. Not about not having users. In any case, the point still stands: most companies absolutely can't code "faster than they can ship" and for that have huge backlogs of things they'd want to add or bugs to fix.
- Aurornis 4mo agoI think it's obvious that they're not referring to the author or a specific person at all. They're talking about how the zeitgeist has changed. Look at Hacker News archives 3 or more years ago and it would be really hard to find anyone arguing that coding speed is not a bottleneck or that engineers need to spend more time in collaboration. You would find a lot of arguments that leaving engineers alone to code is the best thing a business can do and constant lambasting of meetings, documents, approvals, and other collaborative activities. I think there are small pieces of truth on both sides of the argument, but I find the sudden change to claiming that coding speed doesn't matter to feel half-baked. Coding speed is part of building a product. Speeding it up does provide benefit. There's a lot of denial about this, but I think the denial is rooted in emotion more than logic right now.
- jwpapi 4mo agoNeeding focus to think is not the same as needing focus to write code.. It can take a whole day to find 10 good lines to write.
- Aurornis 4mo ago> It can take a whole day to find 10 good lines to write. So we've come full circle to code writing speed being a factor again? :) In all seriousness, this just feels like a never-ending list of attempts to try to resist any notion that LLMs might accelerate software development, however small the increment. The original article was arguing that organizational and collaboration was the bottleneck and that taking a whole day to think about the code was not.
- rafaelmn 4mo agoAnd sometimes an LLM can find those 10 lines in 10 minutes. Or it can find a 100 and you cut them down to 10 in two hours total. Yes I've seen this in practice. The amount of code an LLM can tirelessly ingest is super human.
- jwpapi 4mo agoMost of the time it can’t it can write 1000s, but its not good in finding the best 10s.