>as you would expect from someone who says 'tl;dr'
...What? This is hilarious.
How is using an acronym to provide a brief summary of something indicative of correctness?
...What? This is hilarious.
How is using an acronym to provide a brief summary of something indicative of correctness?
I’m struggling to understand how this is the point that’s most worth debating here. What do you propose we’ll learn?
not sure that's a good excuse for their total failure to contribute anything substantive though
people who don't read long things sometimes know a lot about things like how to weld, how to comfort the grieving, and what makes them happy, but they are always profoundly ignorant when it comes to book learning
that's what happened in this case, where haldar's summary claims that this paper shows that a variable they didn't attempt to measure is the best predictor of another variable they didn't attempt to measure
evidently he just looked at the diagrams and guessed what the words meant
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how this acronym is used.
When provided by an author, it doesn't mean that the author didn't read... It's literally just a substitute for "Summary:". An indication to the reader that if they find the article too long to read, they can read the immediately following subsection to get a summary of the article.
Do you also think that people who say "Summary:" are profoundly ignorant? Or are you just against acronyms?
and evidently in this case the blog post author really didn't read the paper they were 'summarizing'
i find your contributions so far to the discussion of this paper profoundly disappointing
>their (presumably profoundly ignorant)
>i find your contributions so far to the discussion of this paper profoundly disappointing
I'm not sure why you are so hostile, and why you think everyone except yourself is profoundly ignorant, but it's clear that you have some sort of world view where you're superior than anyone else you interact with. I doubt anything I say would convince you otherwise.
tl;dr: I found this conversation disappointing, too.
rather than being hostile, i have taken the time to explain in more detail the things you asked about in my previous comments because they were unclear to you
i am surprised that you have stooped to launching personal attacks on me in this comment, since so far i have criticized only your low-quality comments (and the original blog post) rather than any presumed personal attributes of yours
try to do better please
You've called me "profoundly ignorant" several times in this chain. How you can say this with a straight face is baffling.
i said that people who don't read long things are profoundly ignorant, at least within the sphere of book learning, though often not in other ways. that's not a personal attack on them, it's just an obviously true statement if the phrase 'book learning' refers to anything at all
you haven't said even once that you don't read long things, so there was no reason for me to even suspect that what i said applies to you, even if it were a personal attack (and, well, some people are sensitive about being ignorant because they're used to being criticized for it)
for example, by emphasizing the praiseworthy attributes you have in common rather than the misfortunes that have befallen you and the self-destructive choices which, in cases like this one, perpetuate those misfortunes
i mean it might be useful to read a book from time to time, or at least a 25-page article, and that's less likely if you turn it into an identity threat
we're all born profoundly ignorant but we don't have to stay that way
if you're the most intelligent person in the room maybe you're in the wrong room. this can easily be reversed to provide a plan of action if being the most intelligent person in the room is what you value most. beware, though, some people are smarter than they look