Hacker News Reader

Comment by braveo | Hacker News Reader

We're talking about a conversation amongst kernel/software developers about a very technical software issue.

Anyone who doesn't understand why the risk was so small doesn't belong in the conversation.

Can you even imagine where our medical field would be if we expected surgeons to talk amongst themselves as if they were speaking to the general public?

It is absolutely acceptable for the speaker to make assumptions about the listeners knowledge, and that doesn't reflect poorly on the speaker.

> The purpose of an analogy is to simplify something that's too hard to understand for the person you try to convey your idea to.

It's to convey an idea. That's it, anything you add to that is your own bias at work.

Linus was trying to get across the scale of just how small the risk was.

View on HN

> Can you even imagine where our medical field would be if we expected surgeons to talk amongst themselves as if they were speaking to the general public?

The Git devs are not heart surgeons, software development is not a medical field. Again, you are using an analogy to "prove" your point. Can you, please, use a real argument?

>> The purpose of an analogy is to simplify something that's too hard to understand for the person you try to convey your idea to.

> It's to convey an idea. That's it, anything you add to that is your own bias at work.

Do you disagree that using an analogy is oversimplification? If you don't, then that part about "to simplify a complex idea" in my statement should absolutely stay. If you do disagree, then please show why and how an analogy doesn't oversimplify a complex idea.

An analogy isn't a proof.

When someone uses an analogy they're not trying to prove anything, they're trying to get you to see things from a specific perspective, or they're trying to communicate an idea.

You can still walk away from the analogy and disagree with them, but you should have a better understanding of their perspective or their argument.

> Do you disagree that using an analogy is oversimplification?

I think your entire approach to analogies is unnecessarily combative. You view an analogy as someone trying to prove something rather than trying to communicate their position better (or just an idea in general).

And your approach is to point out that the analogy isn't perfect, and therefore you've "disproved" the analogy.

Only analogies are, by their very nature, imperfect. When an analogy is perfect it ceases to be an analogy and becomes the thing being discussed.

It should automatically be understood that there are the analogy isn't perfect and anyone can find flaws in it. That doesn't mean it isn't an effective way to communicate.

Technically, he was emphasizing how low the probability was, not the risk. Since the impact is pretty high in both cases (accepting a malicious object/mid-air collision), the risk (as a combination of probability & impact) is significant.

Hi downvoters, without some post setting me straight I will be wrong forever, where can I learn more about risk analysis and mitigation?

I think you're getting downvoted because while you may not necessarily be wrong, you're also not really disagreeing with what I said, just making a distinction that isn't all that important (in the context of this conversation).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com