Re: Live Q&A with Edward Snowden: Thursday 23rd January, 8pm GMT, 3pm EST

Posted by Owen Densmore on Jan 26, 2014; 11:30pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Live-Q-A-with-Edward-Snowden-Thursday-23rd-January-8pm-GMT-3pm-EST-tp7584887p7584901.html

By the way, I *do* object to the implicit idea that technical (and possibly "scientific" or "math" too?) discussions are likely to lack substance,

I had a lovely discussion with a bright engineer recently about a very explicit code project, Angular.  Certainly a detailed discussion of its "code" and "architecture" would be boring to all but those interested in Angular.

But then a lovely distinction was made: that Angular was different from other code bases by being a framework for building "Domain Specific Languages".

Again, I don't expect folks to grasp the down and dirty here, but suffice it to say the DSL comment raised the tech talk to a much more subtle level, pulled me out of the bits, and we did have a conversation about it later.

So lets try to not have too many assumptions here about content.  I can delete conversations easily if I find them annoying.

   -- Owen

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an occasional theme that also occurs here.  It's the notion that conversations about philosophy are stupid and technical topics are substantive.

As a possible target of having that sentiment, I'd like to be clear that I don't hold it.

What I do object to are the traps of:

- Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll agree somehow.  In math, convergence.  Judging from the length of this type of thread, I think they are divergent.

- Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and goal of the conversation.

- Ill Defined: This actually is less a problem as we tend to notice the ill defined discussions and correct.  But it is annoying.  As I am :)

- TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming standard on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the discussion, followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by the detail, especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

There, that's not so bad is it?

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com