You are aggressively and publicly trolling a prominent member when he is not being hostile. You should not anticipate the negative consequences of that to be limited to his own perception. You seem to be willfully sabotaging your own reputation. I don’t understand why.
For the same reason people in other articles rail against the ‘Rational Xing’ meme—because komponisto’s sort of comment is the sort of thing I do not want to see spread at all. I do not want to see people browbeating lukeprog or anyone with wild claims about their unproven opinion being ‘Bayesian evidence’, or all the other pathologies and dark arts in that comment which I have pointed out.
If I fail to convince people as measured by karma points, well, whatever. You win some and you lose some—for example, I was expecting my last comment attacking the Many Worlds cultism here to be downvoted, but no, it was highly upvoted. As they say about real karma, it balances out.
If my reputation is damaged by this, well, whatever. Whatever can be destroyed by the truth should be, no? I think I am right here and if I do not give an ‘honest expression of my feelings’, I am manipulating my reputation. And if it is so flimsy a thing that a small flamewar over one of the obscurest grammatical points I have seen can damage it, then it wasn’t much of a reputation at all and I shouldn’t engage in sunk cost fallacy about it.
He didn’t do anything of the sort.
Ah, an excellent reply. To many many questions - ‘no’. I see.
Which seems to be applicable to you, and not kompo at all.
Tu quoque!
Saying that a particular behavior gives a terrible signal is not a personal attack. The following, what kompo actually said, is not a norm violation:
Yeah, whatever. I already dealt with this BS with the disclaimers and other stuff.
By the way, komponisto has not produced the slightest shred of evidence for that ratio. Is ‘making stuff up’ not a norm violation on LW these days?
And by the way, you haven’t provided any citations for the linguistic point in contention, despite my direct unambiguous challenge several days ago.
How many times will I have to ask you and komponisto about this before you finally dig up something—an Internet grammarian or anything saying you are right about how to refer to the SIAI and its myriad connexions? I think this makes 4, which alone earns you two my downvotes.
And by the way, you haven’t provided any citations for the linguistic point in contention, despite my direct unambiguous challenge several days ago.
I most certainly haven’t. The “challenge” in question was a logically rude—and blatantly disingenuous—attempt to spin the context such that I am somehow obliged to provide citations or else your accusation that komponisto is “dressing up [his] linguistic idiosyncrasies in capitalized statistical drag” is somehow valid—rather than totally out of line. I am actually somewhat proud that after I wrote a response to that comment at the time you made it I discarded it rather than replying—there wasn’t anything to be gained and so ignoring it was the wiser course of action.
I was also pleasantly surprised that the community saw through your gambit and downvoted you to −4. In most environments that would have worked for you—people usually reward clever use of spin and power moves like that yet here it backfired.
The “challenge” in question was a logically rude—and blatantly disingenuous—attempt to spin the context such that I am somehow obliged to provide citations or else your accusation that komponisto is “dressing up [his] linguistic idiosyncrasies in capitalized statistical drag” is somehow valid
If his preference is only his preference, why do we care? We should do nothing to cater to one person’s linguistic whims.
If we care because his preference may be shared by the LW community, 10 or 15 upvotes are not enough to indicate a community-wide preference, and likewise nothing should be done.
If we care because his preference is descriptively correct and common across many English-speaking communities beyond LW, then a failure to provide citations is a failure to provide proof, and likewise nothing should be done.
I was also pleasantly surprised that the community saw through your gambit and downvoted you to −4. In most environments that would have worked for you—people usually reward clever use of spin and power moves like that yet here it backfired.
This is another kind of comment I dislike.
Karma should be discussed as little as possible. Goodhart’s law, people! The more you discuss karma and even give it weight, the more you destroy any information it was conveying previously. Please don’t do that; I like being able to sort by karma and get a quick ranking of what comments are good.
[...] 10 or 15 upvotes are not enough to indicate a community-wide preference [...]
They aren’t? I perceive that as a fairly large score and practically the second-highest range a comment ever gets, short of the >40 karma of a particularly clever pun or Yvain comment. (That doesn’t justify catering to the whim, but I’d take it seriously at least.)
This is a buried* thread on a Discussion page; the top comment is now down from the cited 10 or 15 upvotes to just +7 (and my first critical comment is currently at +6); and no one comes to a page on a lukeprog video because they want to weigh in on the burning issue of using ‘the’. The people discussing are not a random subset of the community, even if one wanted to argue that the votes were in favor, so there’s that too.
If this were written up as say a front page Article, I have no idea what the overall reaction would be, because there are all those other factors destroying our ability to extrapolate from this little flamewar to LW in general.
* I take that back, it was buried but apparently my comments have gotten enough upvotes to be unhidden again.
[...] 10 or 15 upvotes are not enough to indicate a community-wide preference [...]
They don’t? I perceive that as a fairly large score and practically the second-highest range a comment ever gets, short of the >40 karma of a particularly clever pun or Yvain comment. (That doesn’t justify catering to the whim, but I’d take it seriously at least.)
For the same reason people in other articles rail against the ‘Rational Xing’ meme—because komponisto’s sort of comment is the sort of thing I do not want to see spread at all. I do not want to see people browbeating lukeprog or anyone with wild claims about their unproven opinion being ‘Bayesian evidence’, or all the other pathologies and dark arts in that comment which I have pointed out.
If I fail to convince people as measured by karma points, well, whatever. You win some and you lose some—for example, I was expecting my last comment attacking the Many Worlds cultism here to be downvoted, but no, it was highly upvoted. As they say about real karma, it balances out.
If my reputation is damaged by this, well, whatever. Whatever can be destroyed by the truth should be, no? I think I am right here and if I do not give an ‘honest expression of my feelings’, I am manipulating my reputation. And if it is so flimsy a thing that a small flamewar over one of the obscurest grammatical points I have seen can damage it, then it wasn’t much of a reputation at all and I shouldn’t engage in sunk cost fallacy about it.
Ah, an excellent reply. To many many questions - ‘no’. I see.
Tu quoque!
Yeah, whatever. I already dealt with this BS with the disclaimers and other stuff.
By the way, komponisto has not produced the slightest shred of evidence for that ratio. Is ‘making stuff up’ not a norm violation on LW these days?
And by the way, you haven’t provided any citations for the linguistic point in contention, despite my direct unambiguous challenge several days ago.
How many times will I have to ask you and komponisto about this before you finally dig up something—an Internet grammarian or anything saying you are right about how to refer to the SIAI and its myriad connexions? I think this makes 4, which alone earns you two my downvotes.
I most certainly haven’t. The “challenge” in question was a logically rude—and blatantly disingenuous—attempt to spin the context such that I am somehow obliged to provide citations or else your accusation that komponisto is “dressing up [his] linguistic idiosyncrasies in capitalized statistical drag” is somehow valid—rather than totally out of line. I am actually somewhat proud that after I wrote a response to that comment at the time you made it I discarded it rather than replying—there wasn’t anything to be gained and so ignoring it was the wiser course of action.
I was also pleasantly surprised that the community saw through your gambit and downvoted you to −4. In most environments that would have worked for you—people usually reward clever use of spin and power moves like that yet here it backfired.
If his preference is only his preference, why do we care? We should do nothing to cater to one person’s linguistic whims.
If we care because his preference may be shared by the LW community, 10 or 15 upvotes are not enough to indicate a community-wide preference, and likewise nothing should be done.
If we care because his preference is descriptively correct and common across many English-speaking communities beyond LW, then a failure to provide citations is a failure to provide proof, and likewise nothing should be done.
This is another kind of comment I dislike.
Karma should be discussed as little as possible. Goodhart’s law, people! The more you discuss karma and even give it weight, the more you destroy any information it was conveying previously. Please don’t do that; I like being able to sort by karma and get a quick ranking of what comments are good.
They aren’t? I perceive that as a fairly large score and practically the second-highest range a comment ever gets, short of the >40 karma of a particularly clever pun or Yvain comment. (That doesn’t justify catering to the whim, but I’d take it seriously at least.)
This is a buried* thread on a Discussion page; the top comment is now down from the cited 10 or 15 upvotes to just +7 (and my first critical comment is currently at +6); and no one comes to a page on a lukeprog video because they want to weigh in on the burning issue of using ‘the’. The people discussing are not a random subset of the community, even if one wanted to argue that the votes were in favor, so there’s that too.
If this were written up as say a front page Article, I have no idea what the overall reaction would be, because there are all those other factors destroying our ability to extrapolate from this little flamewar to LW in general.
* I take that back, it was buried but apparently my comments have gotten enough upvotes to be unhidden again.
They don’t? I perceive that as a fairly large score and practically the second-highest range a comment ever gets, short of the >40 karma of a particularly clever pun or Yvain comment. (That doesn’t justify catering to the whim, but I’d take it seriously at least.)