Skip Navigation

User banner

SpiffyPotato

@ SpiffyPotato @feddit.uk

Posts
0
Comments
11
Joined
12 mo. ago

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • Yes, you assume correctly. I would be interested in finding out how they came to that conclusion!

    I think in a different thread, the question of whether the other person was presenting something in good faith came up. I think my original statement was more geared towards dealing with those types of things. I don’t need to engage with everyone if they’re not willing to engage back.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • It’s a good counterpoint. In my first example I definitely have thought about it previously.

    In my second example it’s clearly stupid so I’m not going to engage with it. I haven’t thought about it previously (I have now !), but I don’t think that makes me an intellectual nepobaby.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • That’s a great question and I’m not sure I have a definitive answer. For lack of better description, it would be the vibe I got from them:

    • Do I feel like they’re being deliberately argumentative.
    • Do I feel like they’re trying to twist my words in an unkind way.
    • Are they looking for ways to find offence in what I’ve said.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • But those examples are extreme on purpose

    Yes they were! And you’re right, we need to allow ourselves to be challenged, to consider ideas outside of our comfort zone, but we also need to able to reject ideas that are not being posited in good faith.

    This is the joy of debate, to question statements and receive nuanced answers in reply.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • Whilst this statement has some merit, its problem is that you’re setting up a precursor to a straw-man argument. This is because who defines “challenging ideas”. This allows anyone to come up with a supposed challenging idea, then call anyone who doesn’t engage in it “an intellectual nepobaby”.

    For example, should I engage in the “challenging idea” that the world is run by lizard people?

    What about the “challenging idea” that throwing bricks in peoples faces will fix their teeth?

  • People that go commando have pee and poo on their pants

    Jump

  • Yes, that is how a Brit would say it

  • People that go commando have pee and poo on their pants

    Jump

  • As a Brit, this shower thought confused me for a while as in British English pants = underwear.

    That aside, I agree. It is pretty ming to go commando

  • Deleted

    What is a Passkey? - Computerphile

    Jump

  • He does caveat that statement around 10 minutes into the video. But I still think it can be a useful technology even if it’s not portable since it can ease a typical sign in flow. I don’t think as this stage it’ll fully replace passwords.

  • Junior dev's code worked in tests, deleted data in prod

    Jump

  • The second one is a testament to why you should always run it as a SELECT statement first to verify you typed it correctly.

  • When tech hardware becomes paperweights

    Jump

  • This something that really annoys me about more and more hardware sold these days. The incessant need to have a connected app and sign in. What I don’t understand is why businesses do it, it increases both the costs before and after a sale to make and maintain?

    What I want is “noddy” hardware that does just what it is made to do.