I am English and the phrasing used is a backhanded way to tell you to shut-up and go away. I've seen it used by both native and non-native speakers in this manner.
It is about 50/50 though as many people don't seem to pick up on backhanded way that many English people speak.
> Also the reality is that "hopping on a call" can often help to resolve problems that would otherwise devolve into months of bikeshedding on mailing lists.
This is also sometimes done to shut you up as well.
The core thing here is the "I'm sorry you feel this way". This immediately deflects all sense of wrong-doing from the people actually doing wrong to the people feeling hurt. There are so many other ways to phrase this that are either more neutral or even acknowledging of some kind of mistake being made that's not on the volunteer's side, but that's not what's happening here. Essentially this means "We did the right thing and now we need to figure out how to make you understand this", not "Something went wrong and we need to figure out how to come to an understanding which might include us having done something wrong".
You always get a comment like this. I don't particularly agree. There are pros and cons to either approach
The tooling in a lot of languages and frameworks expects you to use an ORM, so a lot of the time you will have to put up a fair bit of upfront effort to just use Raw SQL (especially in .NET land).
On top of that ORM makes a lot of things that are super tedious like mapping to models extremely easy. The performance gains of writing SQL is very minor if the ORM is good.
It is well known passive aggressive corporate phrase to shut people up. Who it is used by is largely irrelevant, it almost always means the same thing.
It's also well-known language from product managers and UX researchers trying to gather data to improve their product. And well-known language from customer support people trying to gather more information in order to escalate to the right people who can help.
Your knee-jerk cynicism saddens me. If someone doesn't want to help, they generally just ignore. They generally don't suggest hopping on a call ASAP. When they want to call you is when they're taking it seriously.
> It's also well-known language from product managers and UX researchers trying to gather data to improve their product. And well-known language from customer support people trying to gather more information in order to escalate to the right people who can help.
No it is not. The particular phrasing that was used I have never seen used in any other way than to be dismissive towards people.
> Your knee-jerk cynicism saddens me.
My cynicism isn't knee jerk, My cynicism stems from roughly 20 years working as a developer, being in and observing the industry.
> If someone doesn't want to help, they generally just ignore. They generally don't suggest hopping on a call ASAP. When they want to call you is when they're taking it seriously.
Not if it gets noticed and talked about on forums. It is then used as damage control.
If you're never seen it used to be helpful, I don't know that to tell you. I have, all the time, and it seems entirely normal and unremarkable.
> My cynicism stems from roughly 20 years working as a developer
That saddens me. It seems like you've worked at some rough places, I'm sorry. But they're not all like that, and I wish you could see that.
> Not if it gets noticed and talked about on forums. It is then used as damage control.
I don't see how it's going to work as damage control. Can you explain how? Either it helps resolve things (good), or it doesn't and people keep complaining in the thread. I don't see any scenario where it controls damage. Damage control is things like locking a thread or shadowbanning. Not offering to call.
I'm really sorry you see everything through such a cynical lens.
> If you're never seen it used to be helpful, I don't know that to tell you. I have, all the time, and it seems entirely normal and unremarkable.
I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation. If you aren't used to dealing with it, you will take the comment on face value, if you are like me that had to deal with it most of my life, you won't.
> That saddens me. It seems like you've worked at some rough places, I'm sorry. But they're not all like that, and I wish you could see that.
I got paid well enough. I prefer to be a gun for hire and deal with the reality. I actually prefer these environments, I can assume everyone around me is a snake.
> I don't see how it's going to work as damage control. Can you explain how? Either it helps resolve things (good), or it doesn't and people keep complaining in the thread. I don't see any scenario where it controls damage. Damage control is things like locking a thread or shadowbanning. Not offering to call.
I am sure other people have explained this to you. However it is extremely simple.
1) Feign concern. This fools enough people so it gets quieted down.
2) Call up, pretend to care, person calms down as they feel like things are being addressed.
3) Do nothing.
4) It gets forgotten about, person that initially instigated complaint doesn't bother following up.
> I'm really sorry you see everything through such a cynical lens.
I don't see everything through a cynical lens. I see communications of this type as cynically because they have almost always been disingenuous.
> I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation.
I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
> I actually prefer these environments, I can assume everyone around me is a snake.
Again, I'm really sorry. That's a very, very sad thing.
> I am sure other people have explained this to you. However it is extremely simple.
This process you're describing doesn't make any sense. People who are quitting a volunteer position don't get fooled. They're not going to feel like things are being addressed if they aren't. They tend not to forget, but rather tell others, write long blog posts, share them on social media, etc. If the phone call doesn't try to address things but just ignores them in a call, it only adds fuel to the fire. It wouldn't be a good strategy.
> I see communications of this type as cynically because they have almost always been disingenuous.
And I'm sorry. If you think an offer to delve into a complaint over the phone to get more information is a cynical ploy, I really am sorry. It seems like there's nothing that could convince you someone is really trying to help, because of the lens you're choosing to interpret everything through. And because of the lens you've chosen, it seems self-reinforcing, which makes it extra-sad.
> I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
No I am not. I don't appreciate being gas-lite about this.
How this office politik is used is covered in blogs, covered on YouTube. My parents, friends and colleagues are aware of it. Maybe you need to open your eyes.
> Again, I'm really sorry. That's a very, very sad thing.
Stop apologising, I find it patronising and insincere, even if that isn't your intention.
BTW. I've done the best work under those circumstances, I got paid a lot and it made me HTFU, which helps with personal growth.
> This process you're describing doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense. You are assuming they care if the get a small amount of negative press about it. They don't.
This will be forgotten about within a week, even by most people commenting even here.
> And I'm sorry. If you think an offer to delve into a complaint over the phone to get more information is a cynical ploy, I really am sorry. It seems like there's nothing that could convince you someone is really trying to help, because of the lens you're choosing to interpret everything through. And because of the lens you've chosen, it seems self-reinforcing, which makes it extra-sad.
Firstly. Speaking to me like this is quite honestly patronising. I am quite capable of doing value free analysis.
Secondly, The sort of language people are complaining about almost always been used as a way to deflect valid criticism back on person making the critique. Almost always for disingenuous reasons. Feigning concern about my cynicism doesn't change that fact.
In any event I am tired of being patronised by you.
>>> I suspect that you didn't understand the subtext of the conversation.
>> I suspect you're inventing a subtext that simply isn't there.
> No I am not. I don't appreciate being gas-lite about this.
It's not gaslighting to simply disagree. So please don't throw around accusations like that. Subtext is by definition open to interpretation.
I wasn't trying to be patronizing, and I certainly wasn't "feigning concern". Again, that's the response of a cynic who refuses to believe that sincerity and good intentions are possible. But you are making it clear you don't want to continue the conversation so that's fine.
Sure, but a cleaner coming twice is the same cost of a robot vacuum that will work for a couple of years, typically. They do an okay enough job, but they need to run daily, sometimes twice a day, to really keep up considering it's limitations.
Robovacuums don't cost £150 an hour. If you buy one for £500 and run it every day for two years, you're paying ~70p per hour. Are there any cleaners who charge less than £1 per visit?
People obviously find them useful. But I will reiterate a sibling comments recommendation, get one that can run Valetudo : https://github.com/Hypfer/Valetudo
When I bought my Roomba in 2013, it cost as much total as I pay my cleaning ladies to come once every two weeks. If your floors get dirty easily, it's not really going to get them spotless, but it'll get them far cleaner than they'd otherwise be.
But the cleaners do more than the floors. Vacuuming takes me about 20 minutes once a week. I don't really see the point when I live in a 2 bed apartment.
I was surprised to discover that if you run the robot vac once a day or even every second day it significantly reduces the amount of dust that ends up on other surfaces.
You just schedule it and forget it. As everyone says it doesn't do as good of a job as you do but the main benifit is it's consistent about doing that job more frequently.
Considering some of these things can cost almost £1000. This firmly then lives in the total waste of money pile then. I will stick with my £50 tesco vacuum thank you.
I think it’s one of the most idiotic devices anyone could own. Buy a normal vacuum cleaner for half the price, spend 10 minutes a week vacuuming your apartment, and you won’t come home and find that your cleaning robot spent the afternoon choking on a shoelace.
Because it is relatively expensive, totally unnecessary and decadent and probably doesn't do a particularly good job (as people have admitted in their replies to me).
Additionally much like people ubering a McDonalds when the drive through is less than a 2 minute drive away. It actually causes additional headaches (food is more likely to come col and/or incorrect) and complications that don't exist with simply just spending a few minutes not being lazy is actually easier.
It's not the same as a full vacuum run. But it's god as what they are designed to do. Clean a bit every single day.
All the crumbs that fall down in the kitchen over a day, don't get chance to get stamped into the floor. Noticeable less dust buildup on top of counters. I come home and it's done. Mental load removed.
It's neat. And you can get them from 80 EUR. Even if they only last 5 years, that's 16 EUR per year, but saves you maybe 8h per year. Maybe it's because I live in a relative rich country, but here that is not decadent. People buy cars for 50 000 EUR :3
If getting a small vacuum out quickly is a big mental load, I dunno what to say to that. It all seems like it isn't necessary.
It is like having a smart fridge or something that produce ice-cubes for me and loads of other stupid kitchen gadgets. I didn't feel the need to have a robot vacuum cleaner in the past and I don't feel the need to have one now. Especially with all the iffy spying stuff that it might be doing.
Also any of these things that is less than 100 euros is likely to be crap. I just got rid of a lot of old electronics tat.
The cheaper ones are great, because they don't connect to an app or wifi. Mine just has a remote with a timer. Like I wrote you, mine has been going for 6 or 7 years.
I'm not trying to convince you to buy one, I'm trying to explain why you have one. Because YOU said that you don't understand it. I'm trying to explain my needs. No need to shame me.
Of all the household items i have, the robot vacuum I would certainly buy again.
Which one is that? I want one without cloud and valetudo seems like a pain. Buying an 800 dollar vacuum only to risk bricking it right away is scary. I'd buy a simple one for $80 right away though.
Hypothetically, some people who own such an idiotic device might have pets that bring in lots of dirt from the fields, lose lots of hair, and get a little bit agitated by the normal vacuum cleaner but more or less ignore the robot vacuum.
Cats aren't that bothered by vacuum cleaners unless you come at them with it and they normally just run into another room. Never seen a dog that bothered by them.
The point being made is that some people like to make much a do about nothing. Just put the dog or cat temporarily in the other room, outside and the problem is solved.
> Buy a normal vacuum cleaner for half the price, spend 10 minutes a week vacuuming your apartment
You obviously don't have a pet or a baby.
Make that 15 minutes of vacuuming AND mopping 3 times a day for a baby.
Suddenly it seems very attractive to have a clean house while not having to find the time during the baby's sleep and nap time to do it manually.
You could argue the same for a dishwasher:
I used to only use a single fork, glass and pot (eat out of the pot). A dishwasher seemed like the most idiotic device anyone could own if that's all you need to rinse every day.
Until of course you add more people to that equation...(and maybe cook more than just pasta)
I've had three babies and three dogs (fortunately not all at the same time). I've never mopped or vacuumed three times a day, I can't imagine the need for that.
Maybe our threshold for cleanliness is vastly different, or you somehow managed to produce babies don't throw half of their food on the floor after every meal (3x a day)?
But even with a magic baby and magical dogs, you mentioned only spending 10 minutes a week vacuuming. I have no idea how that is possible with babies and dogs unless your threshold for when something requires cleaning is extremely high.
Before having a robot vacuum/mop I would have to go and pick up every piece of food and wipe the floor after every meal. Sure, the whole kitchen didn't technically need a mop, but there's usually also food in other places simply through the action of cooking. We cook every meal for the baby and most meals for ourselves.
Do you just leave the food and crumbs on the floor until your weekly 10 minute vacuum?
In which case, yes, the notion of a robot vacuum must feel idiotic to you. The notion of a vacuum would also feel idiotic to me in that scenario as you can surely just use a broom and a dustpan for such a small amount of cleaning.
People "roll coal" it because it is kinda amusing to do it, and it is a middle finger towards people they perceive to be preachy.
I accidentally "rolled coal" in my 90s Landrover because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill. It was amusing in the way of "oh shit! I kinda just blew a load of black smoke in the driver face behind me".
Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.
The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .
Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing. Some examples from state laws listed at that same Wikipedia page: "knowing release of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions", "with the intent", "may not knowingly or intentionally cause", "intentionally release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions"
Your reply is exactly the preachy response that causes people to be defiant and resentful.
> Yes, people do all sorts of nasty and cruel things because they think it's kinda amusing. That doesn't justify the behavior.
Blowing a bit of soot up in the air isn't in itself cruel. It is just a bit naughty. Now doing it in someone's face like I've seen in videos deliberately is not very nice and can be dangerous. I think it should go without saying that I don't condone anti-social and dangerous behaviour.
> The act of riding a bicycle in and of itself is not "preachy". That happens. "six bicyclists training for a road race were run over by a 16-year-old who was rolling coal", at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal .
Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy? BTW, I am a cyclist that spent 3 months out of work because of a hit and run accident that left me with a permanent weakness in my right shoulder as a result. The reason I don't spend a lot of time with other cyclists, is because everything started to become a political issue against drivers, a lot of my fellow cyclists are preachy. I heard people saying that owning a pet was akin to slavery and other such nonsense. As someone that enjoys both driving and cycling, it left a bad taste in my mouth.
BTW, In the story he caused a collision while rolling coal. The issue was dangerous driving. Not blowing some soot up into the air itself.
> Rolling coal nearly always implies deliberate intent, not coincidental timing.
In my case it was, it was because I was stuck in the wrong gear. My vehicle is currently in a garage being repaired for that very issue now (clutch is worn). It was funny in the sense of "OMG that is embarassing".
Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?
> Who said anything about riding a bicycle is preachy?
People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.
> In my case it was
Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.
> Define "preachy". Are you sure you aren't the one preaching the fun of burning coal and annoying people under the banner of "can't you take a joke"?
What are you on about? I prefaced my post quite clearly. This is nonsense.
> People burn coal while passing cyclists. Why? You yourself say that not all cyclists are preachy.
Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If a group of people don't police the most extreme members you are defined by those members.
BTW mountain bikers/bmx don't generally have the same poor perception IME as many other cyclists because generally the attitude is generally different.
> Your accidental and short release of dark exhaust caused by driving an old vehicle does not fit the definition of burning coal. City busses where I lived in the 1980s emitted a lot of exhaust. That was simply bad emissions control, not rolling coal.
Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To get the black soot you need to just have poor combustion of a diesel.
This was what was happening because I had to push the throttle to the limit so the engine didn't stall. For all intents and purposes it is exactly the same thing as there was incomplete combustion of diesel and therefore lots of black smoke coming from my exhaust.
> I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular."
I agree. However if the most vocal members of the group come off preachy, self entitled etc. at best people are going to be ambivalent towards you and at worst straight off hostile.
> Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake.
It is often pot and kettle. I am not in the US and don't care about stupid culture war bs. I see both as equally ridiculous.
> No. Rolling coal requires injecting vastly more fuel and making the mixture far richer than even the worst possible factory tune.
This is exactly what happened. Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly.
So all intents and purposes the effect was the same. That is why the vehicle is in the garage. I don't like having a vehicle that isn't running properly.
Earlier you wrote it was "because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill".
Now it's "Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly."
Here's NJ's law:
> No person shall retrofit any diesel-powered vehicle with any device, smoke stack (i.e., hood stack or bed stack), or other equipment which enhances the vehicle's capacity to emit soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions, or shall purposely release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions into the air and onto roadways and other vehicles while operating the vehicle, colloquially referred to as "coal rolling."
Did you purposely release significant quantities of soot? According to your own words, that was not your intent.
Therefore under NJ law you were not rolling coal, even though the visible effect is the same. The law is based on your intent and purpose.
Yes, In some people minds that is the case. Do you think that is a big own on me? I agree, those guys shouldn't be doing that because they look like idiots.
However at the same time I understand the attitude. The fact that I understand an attitude doesn't mean I condone it.
Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If motorists don't police the most extreme members then motorists are defined by those members.
You don't condone it but you think calling it nasty behavior is preachy. Sounds like you are so afraid of being vocal and preachy that the most you can do is say “tisk, tisk” - hardly effective policing.
It is following a magazine style. This is partly to elicit an emotional reaction and partly I suspect because the copy writer is bored and wishes they were writing novels instead.
if it's a proper news source they (and every other paper) already reported it who knows how many times. "city is about to ban phones in schools" "city is banning phones in schools" "the phones in schools were banned". everybody who needs to know already knows
This is not intended to be a news piece. It's a story. But whoever is in charge of CMS messed up categories. It should not be labeled news
annoying? if you want Crime and Punishment to be "guy killed a grandma" that's your thing but believe me this style is not annoying to many people aside from vocal minority
Firstly, I love the straw-man. I am fine with length and the more story driven approach if it is warranted. More often than not I do not believe it is warranted.
Secondly, I am allowed (whether you like it or not) to complain about something if I don't like it. I find this style annoying and I often believe it is written in a way to manipulate people, which I have a distaste for.
Thirdly, whether I am in a vocal minority or not doesn't mean that vocal minority is incorrect in its criticism. A lot of sites have adopted this style even more more "news" style articles.
You're allowed to complain of course. Just like people are allowed to write these stories and me and people who upvoted this allowed to do the opposite of complaining. whether you like it or not.
There's nothing wrong in being in minority but I guess because it is on frontpage it says something about preferences of majority.
Why then make it sound like I can't by deliberately misstating my position in a completely ridiculous manner to be as argumentative as possible?
> Just like people are allowed to write these stories and me and people who upvoted this allowed to do the opposite of complaining. whether you like it or not
I never said once they weren't allowed to. I said I found the writing style annoying.
> There's nothing wrong in being in minority but I guess because it is on frontpage it says something about preferences of majority.
It doesn't say anything about the preferences on the majority. A minority of people would have up-voted this as well. Many other people may have found it annoying that said nothing or simply ignored it. You don't know their numbers. So this is speculation.
how did I misstate your position? you say this style is annoying. I say the whole point of this article is style, being an interesting read not just rehashing facts. just like many good books. and I chose a well known book as an example for my point.
there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
Straw-man and now gas-lighting. Obviously I wouldn't have the same opinion about a classic novel (however flowery prose is a problem in a many novels) as I do about throwaway news "stories" written by a copy writer that wants to make use of their English degree. Pretending someone would (without any evidence to the contrary) is a disingenuous tactic to make people shut-up. I've had this done to me in person.
> there was tons of news rehashing facts of what happened (phones banned yadda yadda), why not just read that instead if you want it
If they hadn't have used the story like prose I may have read the rest of it! That is my and the OP's entire complaint.
> If they hadn't have used the story like prose I may have read the rest of it!
So you didn't read it? How far did you make it? I swear there is an underlined link to another article about the ban somewhere in first paragraph. If you follow that link, there's a handy sidebar appears with details about the ban. Yay technology)
> throwaway news "stories" written by a copy writer that wants to make use of their English degree
Personal attacks on people who can write? let's goo!
Freedom of Speech has and will be suppressed by various governments, with various reasons being given. This has been going on for longer than any of us have been alive.
It is a statement of fact about the nature of the US state (and would apply to most western ones tbh). Freedom of Speech is simply a privilege that those in power grant you when it is convenient to do so. It will be taken away when expedient to do so.
The post I was replying to seemed to believe it was a novel situation.
Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical, but my impression is that people who write stuff like this really want to think they are the main character in a movie.
The way it is written is a bit like the the Navy Seal, GNU-Linux copy-pastas.
If you go back and read these after knowing what happened over the last 30 years. It is difficult to take seriously. I feel similarly when reading "A declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace".
I think it's pretty cringe, but also that we're expecting an awful lot from a zine article. This is basically the tone of every cDc tfile. Tfile culture was (a male-dominated) Tumblr before there was Tumblr.
It's very full of itself. But I fully understand where it comes from. When you are the only one seeing something in technology that others simply cannot see. When you think about these things in a way that no one else can understand. And when that allows you to do things that no one else thought were possible.
You just see the world in a way that no one else around you does. A world that is between indifferent and hostile to your way of thinking and seeks to assimilate you into a fundamentally incurious, indifferent, uninspired apparatus.
Believe it or not if you are an expert in almost field you will understand things that other people do not. A lot of people in those fields will feel that way you are describing.
There is nothing special about this because you happen to be able to do it with a computer/electronics/network.
You become an expert by tinkering and experimenting.
I understand a lot about how bicycles work because I tinkered and built my own. It isn't exactly the same as hacking, but it is very similar. When you work on old bikes, motorbikes, cars you sometimes have to come up to novel solutions to problems.
The fact that you and the author can't see the similarities is exactly the issue I and others have pointed out.
It is not the same thing, because back in 1986 the "hacker" concept was new, associated with criminality, and not with 'curiosity', information processing and thinking. It is not really the same as bikes and cars, which are around for quite some time and are made of tangible, mechanical stuff, whereas information are just abstract '0s' and '1s'.
I'm am aware of this raid and similar ones. It doesn't make you the main character or really that important. Whenever the EFF post something, I know it will be ignored by almost anyone that has power.
You’re not cynical. The writer is self absorbed and many many people became “hackers” for similar ”cool” reasons.
Really you’re all just generic and overplayed programmers. It’s the same thing that causes programmers to call themselves ninjas and rockstars while someone like a chemical engineer doesn’t.
I think the Ninja stuff tbh comes from like a lot of pseudo-eastern philosophy that people buy into when it comes to programming and/or videos games e.g. the CSS Zen Garden.
Plumber is a category as well. The difference is that plumbers do not gather once a year to declare the Eternal Principles of Pipe. There is no Council of the Wrench. No one is arguing about the True Spirit of the Elbow Joint. They simply tighten the fitting and go home.
According to AI (so question it), The Mentor was 21 when he wrote this. There's something about the early 20s that makes many people believe that the world has deeper significance and scope than it really does. It can be a delusional time. This is also, coincidentally, when people who get schizophrenia often start to show symptoms. I'm not saying The Mentor has this particular affliction, I'm saying that the early 20s is a trigger that brings out a lot of things in people, which they later get over.
there is direct evidence that disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar tend to manifest in the early 20s. generalizing that to everyone's experience of their 20s is obviously a bit tenuous
The last of your prefrontal cortex's major systems come online in your earlier 20s, which can lead to bipolar or schizophrenia if those systems are disordered. In most, it just happens to lead to "your first deep thoughts about the broader world and your significance in it" and may lead to writing youthful cringepieces like "The Conscience of a Hacker". It's kind of like a second puberty. The underlying cause is the same, if the results are vastly different.
That's just like your opinion man, I see it through rose coloured glasses as a poem from more naive times back when some folks still had some hope... This was way before vulture capitalism fucked everything up you know, or at least that's how I remember it but I was like 10.
Not everyone was into this hopeful vision of cyberspace though, Masters of Doom comes to mind.
You’re right (as someone a bit older but also with rose-tinted glasses).
There was a feeling of hope on the Internet at the time that this was a communication tool that would bring us all together. I do feel like some of that died around 9/11 but that it was Facebook and the algorithms that really killed it. That is where the Internet transitioned from being about showcasing the best of us to showcasing the worst of us. In the name of engagement.
Why do people always ignore what happened before a few hundred years before? The Moors invaded Spain and were advancing into Europe and moved into what is modern day France. It also ignores that Muslims and Christians would in-fight between themselves in what is now modern day Spain.
Well... I was talking about about what was happening a few centuries ago.
Regardless why is it strictly relevant what happened 250-800 years before the Iberian kingdoms expelled or exterminated their Muslim and Jewish population?
> It also ignores that Muslims and Christians would in-fight between themselves
> Regardless why is it strictly relevant what happened 250-800 years before the Iberian kingdoms expelled or exterminated their Muslim and Jewish population?
The Reconquista partially led to the Inquisition. The Reconquista started 711 and ended in 1492. How could it not be relevant?
I feel that you are being deliberately obtuse. It is pretty obvious how they are intertwined.
I actually spoke to a friend of mine who basically knows a huge amount of history (he is at University doing some sort Masters in a related subject), because some of the replies on this subject in sibling threads are so ignorant they actually gaslite me.
Instead repeating the same thing in multiple messages you might at some point consider saying HOW do you think they are related. Because yes its obvious that they are, on its own that is saying very little.
> ignorant they actually gaslite me.
Because its very hard to understand what specific points are you trying to make?
It is about 50/50 though as many people don't seem to pick up on backhanded way that many English people speak.
> Also the reality is that "hopping on a call" can often help to resolve problems that would otherwise devolve into months of bikeshedding on mailing lists.
This is also sometimes done to shut you up as well.