Yeah, the feeling of “just needing that one perfect tool before I can do this” seems terribly common and I feel like it’s being enabled quite a bit in our society. If I just had the right editor/keyboard/notepad/fountain pen/jig etc, then I’ll be able to work on this other thing…
He’ll try it right after he’s done tweaking his NeoVim config so he can finally start doing some meaningful work in it.
Helix and Vim/NeoVim? Muscle memory is overrated anyways.
I think the reason paw patrol is on there is it can be viewed as police state propaganda.
I never watched it, so I can’t speak for that, but I do know some people genuinely think that. I am thus not too sure that this is done ironically.
Glad you agree that technical jargon can be used, and must be used, at the top of the bell curve. Be it always or sometimes.
Thanks, I gaslit myself into thinking I misunderstood what “technical science job” meant.
And I am talking about the fact that believing that nothing is complicated and that complexity is always made up can be a dangerous, anti-intellectual and anti-academic argument.
Of course, if you’re talking with people who don’t need to actually do the job and only understand enough of it, and you still speak like to a specialist, you’re not only in the middle, but also potentially (but not necessarily) kind of a dick.
But reading this and your example, and the fact we seem to be miscommunicating somewhat, I do wonder this: English is not my first language, what do you include in “technical science job”? Is it a specific job or group of jobs? I took it to mean any job with tech or science workers.
EDIT: further explanation of what went through in my head, which may clarify interpretation and intent. Having the management lingo example made me interpret that curve as a: all this jargon is just bullshit and you could do better without it. Definitely true imo with management lingo.
But what I was trying to say, maybe poorly, is that some technical jargon, in some areas, is meaningful. Explaining in layman’s term is dumbing down. Nothing wrong with that when it fits the purpose, but you still sacrifice something in the process.
“amongst the people who understand the jargon and notations, jargon and notations are layman’s term”
Sure, I guess that’s true if you limit your sample, this is not what I took the meme to mean but ok.
Anyone who took undergrad maths/science is not layman’s term.
I also disagree with this for the record but that’s besides the point.
My point being that for some stuff, you just can’t describe things as bags within bags, irrelevant of where you are on the scale, at least not without being quite intellectually dishonest and oversimplifying.
I am not saying I am on top of the scale, I am saying I’ve met and worked with people on top of the scale (and couldn’t keep up), and they don’t explain things with bags within bags.
EDIT: for clarity, there are things that are too complicated for everyone right now. One day we may understand them well enough that someone can explain it in layman’s term without loss of precision, but to get to that point, we must accept that we need to work with complex notations and lingo. Example: in the past, only Newton and Leibniz and a handful of others understood calculus. Now it’s taught in high school. Newton and Leibniz were not in the middle of the bell curve, nor did they overcomplicate their theory to make it sound fancy.
I am often torn a bit on this one, depending on the cases.
Don’t get me wrong, management lingo is undeniably bullshit, trying to hide how simple what you’re saying actually is, and giving yourself stature and legitimacy.
But I would argue that there are fields were the emergence of complex concepts (and lingo, and notations to define them) is a necessary evil. For sure even there, there are people who abuse it to big themselves up, but I also think a lot of the time, either the thing you’re speaking of is genuinely complicated, or it’s just not well understood enough. Sometimes I really wish I could say things in a simpler way, both in concepts and expression, but I can’t find a way to make it so. Not by malice, not to appear to know more, but genuinely because I don’t understand it enough yet either and that’s the best I’ve got.
Having experienced it first-hand, I am more forgiving to this (depending on the attitude of the person spouting the jargon) and don’t automatically assume all technical-sounding terms are automatically bullshit. They often are, but not always.
But management lingo is. 100%.
… Damn you.
Here comes a number of hours procrastinating tinkering with my system to make me more productive on one of the numerous side projects that I will, for sure, finish now.
I am happy with my system and won’t distrohop again, I am happy with my system and won’t distrohop again, I am happy with my system and won’t distrohop again…
I mean, if your beliefs in the unix philosophy are still strong enough to do away with the convenience that is (or can be…) systemd, you deserve some respect.
It’s only a matter of time until you match that meme and there’s only one alternative.
arch btw…
That’s funny because seeing that meme, I thought how interesting it was that the “hardcoreness” of a Linux user went from being measured by the length of the greybeard to the height of the programming socks.
Although, I guess back then, the distros mentioned would probably have been revolving around Gentoo, void, slackware, and Linux from scratch. So I suppose greybeards don’t necessarily need the high socks.
Damn shame if you ask me.
I always assumed they went straight to Linus Torvalds, and that he’d personally revoke your Linux license and flame you publicly after receiving too many.
User is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
No. If you write 11 in base b, bijective number system or not, that’s b+1, not b.