Reading a chart and understanding it are different things, a further different thing is understanding what it means in context.

This is a good book for learning the ins and outs of how to understanding statistical data in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

It does come at it through the lens of intentionally deceptive practices but It’s a good general introduction as well.

@mods The rest of this chain was offensive, but this comment consisting solely of a personal attack is not ?

@Williama:Genzedong

I’m not sure what this means, is this a reference i’m supposed to know?

Come on lib send me the Tiananmen Square video of tanks doing the things you claim they do. @Williama:Genzedong

Not sure if this is aimed at me, but i haven’t claimed anything to do with tanks, at any point, ever.

Some answers haven’t “disappeared for mysterious reasons”,

That’s fair , i meant “mysterious reasons” in a less factual and more sarcasm way, but i can see how that might have not come across.

it’s for spreading misinformation.

That’s subjective, which is what that whole thread is about no?

I wasn’t really emphasizing the subjectivity of the claims, as much as just pointing out that answers had been removed and they might be found in the modlog.

You seem to have a strong opinion on this, i do not.

If you disagree then come on, send me a video of the “horrendous crimes committed by China in Tiananmen Square”

I’m sure you can search for whatever videos you need, i haven’t made any claims i would need to provide video evidence for.

I won’t be providing evidence of positions i haven’t taken or claims i haven’t made, that would be silly.

I fully consent. @Williama:Genzedong.

Still not sure what this reference is.

Surely at least one of the “victims of the massacre” would have recorded something the “ruthless military regime” and their oh so very “despicable acts of massacre”.

See the above section about there being no claims or positions taken.

If you want to imagine i’ve sent you proof of this imaginary claim i’ve made so you can be upset in your imagination , feel free.

If you and other libs are annoyed that the devs are “tankies”, then go back to reddit.

See above re: claims that never happened

worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.

Great argument there. Replace what I say with whatever you think it says and go on from there.

I mean, yes… that is what i did… i explained as i did it.

Should I just do the same with yours and we’ll see what kind of nonsense comes out? I’m sure that would be in your interpretation of “good faith”.

Was this a preface to actually doing this? is there a part of the text missing ?

TL;DR;

It’s weird to be upset at people for having personal boundaries/morals/ethics.

Using “purity test” like a pejorative, because using a more accurate term makes your argument sound bad, is a bad faith approach.

You say “purity tests” like it’s some sovcit term imbued with magical powers, like DEI or woke.

Headcanon replace it with “personal ethics and morals” and you might see how some of those arguments are really just people having boundaries.

An example of what i mean.

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: purity tests.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

vs

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: personal ethics and morals.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

See how the rest of that statement sounds without the bad faith, magic-word interpretation ?

I’m not expecting any good faith arguments in response, so don’t worry, this was a just-in-case kind of thing.

It’s much faster to check code for correctness than it is to write it in the first place.

In certain circumstances sure, but at any level of complexity, not so much.

At some point it becomes less about code correctness and more about logical correctness, which requires contextual domain understanding.

Want to churn out directory changing python scripts, go nuts.

Want to add business logic that isn’t a single discrete change to an existing system, less likely.

For small things is works OK, it’s less useful the more complex the task.