If you constrained your influence to improving the graphical presentation then your work would be a valuable contribution worthy of much appreciation.
I’d love to give you an opportunity to retract that sentence. I think it implies more than is reasonable.
If you read a little more literally you will observe that this is strictly a compliment. You already know that I consider the overall effect of the changes is ‘abominable’ and so no new slight is conveyed. Instead, it puts the “agree that we obviously disagree” parts to one side so that approval of the remainder can be honestly expressed. The design changes are overall a solid step forward in elegance. To what extent you appreciate that indication of approval depends on, among other things, to how much of your identity is invested in all the user interface development you have been involved in verses the amount you are invested in the functionality and policy decisions.
(Note, by the way, that you opened up communication with grinding your teeth then proceeded with an emphasis on other-optimisation. This almost never works unless you have a strong indication that the other is fully emersed into your frame. But who cares? You don’t need to engage with me or to control what expressions I make. You would lose almost nothing just by ignoring me and letting me answer CronoDAS’s question then move along.)
Please, try hard to just win.
Be very careful what you wish for. Wedrifid when he is trying hard to win scares me. Even in the few seconds it took to write this paragraph he plotted several paths for victory. They were… creative.
So that this context isn’t lost in this unfriendly exchange: I’ve enjoyed your contributions to this site for a long time, and expect to continue to enjoy them in the future. I have much respect for your clarity of thought and intelligence. Now…
You already know that I consider the overall effect of the changes is ‘abominable’
So you know why I’m still bothering you - Each change can be individually further tweaked, reverted, or replaced with something else. I’m uninterested in your opinion of the “overall effect” of the changes and interested in your particular thinking on each change. I’m more interested in your opinion after it seems to me that you’ve had the opportunity to understand our thinking behind each change rather than only your first responses.
You would lose almost nothing just by ignoring me and letting me answer CronoDAS’s question then move along.
Hmm… I seem to be assuming it’ll be easier for one of us to change the other’s mind than you do. I honestly don’t know whether I’d change my mind or you would, if we invested the time to understand each others reasons, but I think it likely enough that I’d profit from listening that I’m happily investing the time. … though, I guess you’ve not convinced me that today isn’t an uncharacteristically grumpy day for you, so I guess I will leave you alone for the next few hours.
Again: you have my respect and I expect to continue benefiting from your contributions to this site.
I seem to be assuming it’ll be easier for one of us to change the other’s mind than you do.
It isn’t personal. The prior for changing people’s mind is abysmal and in this case I am also able to take into account information about the political context. There are people with more status and more power than me who disagree with me on the underlying issue. One of them is Eliezer. This is not a situation in which I wish to internalise a goal of changing the mind of the implementors.
you’ve not convinced me that today isn’t an uncharacteristically grumpy day for you
Nor should I have, for it is a grumpy day. But that doesn’t mean I don’t endorse my comments fully on reflection. I also suggest you see aggression when there is mere flippancy, leaving you with more of a feeling of personal unpleasantness than I have.
I appreciate the attempt to maintain goodwill. That matters to me given that I’ll be returning to Melbourne once I’m done at Berkeley and I understand you are prominent among the Melbourne LW community.
Then goodwill is maintained, and I look forward to seeing you at a future Melbourne meetup. By the status afforded through karma, you’ll be by far the highest status participant if you do attend :)
If you read a little more literally you will observe that this is strictly a compliment. You already know that I consider the overall effect of the changes is ‘abominable’ and so no new slight is conveyed. Instead, it puts the “agree that we obviously disagree” parts to one side so that approval of the remainder can be honestly expressed. The design changes are overall a solid step forward in elegance. To what extent you appreciate that indication of approval depends on, among other things, to how much of your identity is invested in all the user interface development you have been involved in verses the amount you are invested in the functionality and policy decisions.
(Note, by the way, that you opened up communication with grinding your teeth then proceeded with an emphasis on other-optimisation. This almost never works unless you have a strong indication that the other is fully emersed into your frame. But who cares? You don’t need to engage with me or to control what expressions I make. You would lose almost nothing just by ignoring me and letting me answer CronoDAS’s question then move along.)
Be very careful what you wish for. Wedrifid when he is trying hard to win scares me. Even in the few seconds it took to write this paragraph he plotted several paths for victory. They were… creative.
So that this context isn’t lost in this unfriendly exchange: I’ve enjoyed your contributions to this site for a long time, and expect to continue to enjoy them in the future. I have much respect for your clarity of thought and intelligence.
Now…
So you know why I’m still bothering you -
Each change can be individually further tweaked, reverted, or replaced with something else. I’m uninterested in your opinion of the “overall effect” of the changes and interested in your particular thinking on each change. I’m more interested in your opinion after it seems to me that you’ve had the opportunity to understand our thinking behind each change rather than only your first responses.
Hmm… I seem to be assuming it’ll be easier for one of us to change the other’s mind than you do. I honestly don’t know whether I’d change my mind or you would, if we invested the time to understand each others reasons, but I think it likely enough that I’d profit from listening that I’m happily investing the time.
… though, I guess you’ve not convinced me that today isn’t an uncharacteristically grumpy day for you, so I guess I will leave you alone for the next few hours.
Again: you have my respect and I expect to continue benefiting from your contributions to this site.
It isn’t personal. The prior for changing people’s mind is abysmal and in this case I am also able to take into account information about the political context. There are people with more status and more power than me who disagree with me on the underlying issue. One of them is Eliezer. This is not a situation in which I wish to internalise a goal of changing the mind of the implementors.
Nor should I have, for it is a grumpy day. But that doesn’t mean I don’t endorse my comments fully on reflection. I also suggest you see aggression when there is mere flippancy, leaving you with more of a feeling of personal unpleasantness than I have.
I appreciate the attempt to maintain goodwill. That matters to me given that I’ll be returning to Melbourne once I’m done at Berkeley and I understand you are prominent among the Melbourne LW community.
Then goodwill is maintained, and I look forward to seeing you at a future Melbourne meetup.
By the status afforded through karma, you’ll be by far the highest status participant if you do attend :)