8 ms·

I don't know why choice of language is having such sway in determining what you view as professional. Maybe it's just a cultural difference but where I'm from p

I don't know why choice of language is having such sway in determining what you view as professional. Maybe it's just a cultural difference but where I'm from people just use the words they need to to communicate what they're trying to say. If something's a shit show I'd prefer someone just said it rather than dancing around it with corpo-speak.

dwattttt 2mo ago
> I don't know why choice of language is having such sway in determining what you view as professional This is a blog post: it's purely textual, language is the only thing it uses to convey meaning. The words chosen to do so reflect what the author thinks. > where I'm from people just use the words they need to to communicate what they're trying to say Yes. What ark is trying to say, via the words he chose, is what's earning him the description of "unprofessional". He could say every factual thing in the blog post without being unprofessional, he just chose not to.
- dpatterbee 2mo ago
  I think you're, intentionally or not, misinterpreting my comment. Language is used to convey meaning, and Andrew wrote words that presumably meant what he meant them to mean. However, in many comments on here people are not commenting on "what he meant them to mean" and instead focusing on which words he chose to convey that meaning. I'm sure Andrew could've switched out every word in the post and still conveyed the same meaning, and perhaps offended the peanut gallery's sensibilities a little less, but why should he? In the example I was originally replying to, suppose Andrew had instead said "Jarred showed poorer than desired management abilities" and "Employees disliked working at Oven". Approximately the same message is communicated, a little watered-down maybe, but who's gaining from this tone-policing? Certainly not us, the readers. And I don't see how this affects how "professional" this is, unless "professional" is just performative nonsense and nothing to do with the substance of the text?
  - dwattttt 2mo ago
    > And I don't see how this affects how "professional" this is, unless "professional" is just performative nonsense and nothing to do with the substance of the text? It changes my opinion of whether I trust ark to actually be right, or whether he has (and will continue to) let his emotions get in the way. The particular quote I noted was > We probably tried to tell you to try enabling it and you didn't listen. We have good advice, damn it! He wanted to say this, more than he wanted to know if he was right. It reduces my trust in his judgement.
    - dpatterbee 2mo ago
      Do you normally assume that if someone shows any emotion that that emotion is "get[ting] in the way"? People's emotions are influenced by real things, and they don't have to speak dispassionately about those things. Especially when the blog post is entitled "My Thoughts on ---". I don't know what you're getting at with your final paragraph, I feel like he's in a pretty good position to assert something he probably did or did not do.
dminik 2mo ago
As someone from a cultural background that is considered very direct and blunt, I can say that there is a rather fine line between being direct and being an asshole. This post devolves into a personal attack one sentence in. There was no reason to go into Jared's life at all to begin with. The entire post doesn't need to exist at all if you're confident that Bun leaving will have zero or even positive impact. Why turn an already negative event of a slop rewrite into drama? It's petty and immature.
- dminik 2mo ago
  Also notice how I didn't have to bring up Andrew soiling his Pampers when he was a wee beginner.
  - Mawr 2mo ago
    It's a good thing there's nothing of the sort in TFA then? Quoting: "He moved fast and tried a lot of different stuff, jumping head first into problems that he was not yet equipped to solve, leading to mediocre outcomes in terms of engineering, but learning a whole heck of a lot in the process. I see it as quite a healthy attitude, particularly for young people and students. This is the best way to level up and learn new things." I don't know, maybe you just don't understand what he's saying here? Or rather, are applying some sort of a negative spin to what is a factual analysis of a valid approach to doing something?
    - dminik 2mo ago
      My issue with the paragraph is that it doesn't really connect into anything meaningful. It's just saying that Jarred was a beginner. The only connection it has is as a segue into calling Jarred a terrible manager here: > It was at this point - when he suddenly became a manager - that this "beginner energy" started to hit differently for me. Note how "beginner energy" is considered good in the first paragraph, but suddenly terrible when applied to a different thing here. Terrible work culture aside, and the fact that it seemingly worked out for those who joined aside, Jarred would obviously have beginner energy in management as well considering he's not done it before. Why is it suddenly bad here? Honest question, is there any record of Andrew actually saying Jarred had "beginner energy," or was this invented for the post as well?

dwattttt 2mo ago

> I don't know why choice of language is having such sway in determining what you view as professional This is a blog post: it's purely textual, language is the only thing it uses to convey meaning. The words chosen to do so reflect what the author thinks. > where I'm from people just use the words they need to to communicate what they're trying to say Yes. What ark is trying to say, via the words he chose, is what's earning him the description of "unprofessional". He could say every factual thing in the blog post without being unprofessional, he just chose not to.

dpatterbee 2mo ago
I think you're, intentionally or not, misinterpreting my comment. Language is used to convey meaning, and Andrew wrote words that presumably meant what he meant them to mean. However, in many comments on here people are not commenting on "what he meant them to mean" and instead focusing on which words he chose to convey that meaning. I'm sure Andrew could've switched out every word in the post and still conveyed the same meaning, and perhaps offended the peanut gallery's sensibilities a little less, but why should he? In the example I was originally replying to, suppose Andrew had instead said "Jarred showed poorer than desired management abilities" and "Employees disliked working at Oven". Approximately the same message is communicated, a little watered-down maybe, but who's gaining from this tone-policing? Certainly not us, the readers. And I don't see how this affects how "professional" this is, unless "professional" is just performative nonsense and nothing to do with the substance of the text?
- dwattttt 2mo ago
  > And I don't see how this affects how "professional" this is, unless "professional" is just performative nonsense and nothing to do with the substance of the text? It changes my opinion of whether I trust ark to actually be right, or whether he has (and will continue to) let his emotions get in the way. The particular quote I noted was > We probably tried to tell you to try enabling it and you didn't listen. We have good advice, damn it! He wanted to say this, more than he wanted to know if he was right. It reduces my trust in his judgement.
  - dpatterbee 2mo ago
    Do you normally assume that if someone shows any emotion that that emotion is "get[ting] in the way"? People's emotions are influenced by real things, and they don't have to speak dispassionately about those things. Especially when the blog post is entitled "My Thoughts on ---". I don't know what you're getting at with your final paragraph, I feel like he's in a pretty good position to assert something he probably did or did not do.

dminik 2mo ago

As someone from a cultural background that is considered very direct and blunt, I can say that there is a rather fine line between being direct and being an asshole. This post devolves into a personal attack one sentence in. There was no reason to go into Jared's life at all to begin with. The entire post doesn't need to exist at all if you're confident that Bun leaving will have zero or even positive impact. Why turn an already negative event of a slop rewrite into drama? It's petty and immature.

dminik 2mo ago
Also notice how I didn't have to bring up Andrew soiling his Pampers when he was a wee beginner.
- Mawr 2mo ago
  It's a good thing there's nothing of the sort in TFA then? Quoting: "He moved fast and tried a lot of different stuff, jumping head first into problems that he was not yet equipped to solve, leading to mediocre outcomes in terms of engineering, but learning a whole heck of a lot in the process. I see it as quite a healthy attitude, particularly for young people and students. This is the best way to level up and learn new things." I don't know, maybe you just don't understand what he's saying here? Or rather, are applying some sort of a negative spin to what is a factual analysis of a valid approach to doing something?
  - dminik 2mo ago
    My issue with the paragraph is that it doesn't really connect into anything meaningful. It's just saying that Jarred was a beginner. The only connection it has is as a segue into calling Jarred a terrible manager here: > It was at this point - when he suddenly became a manager - that this "beginner energy" started to hit differently for me. Note how "beginner energy" is considered good in the first paragraph, but suddenly terrible when applied to a different thing here. Terrible work culture aside, and the fact that it seemingly worked out for those who joined aside, Jarred would obviously have beginner energy in management as well considering he's not done it before. Why is it suddenly bad here? Honest question, is there any record of Andrew actually saying Jarred had "beginner energy," or was this invented for the post as well?