Hacker News Reader

Comment by withinboredom | Hacker News Reader

The first is better, IMHO. No need to be so dry and boring in your second example. Also, in the first example, I know the reviewer is completely against my approach. I need some proper ammo to rebut with, or go back to the drawing board. In the second example, it could easily turn into a multi-day back-and-forth until one of us gives up.

View on HN

Ah yes, the best way to enforce technology decisions is by insults and hostility.

I reread it and didn’t see a single personal insult. Can you point them out?

With Linux and git being probably the most widely adopted open source software projects ever, it would be a valid argument that Linus's approach is by historical proof "the best way".

This is a logical fallacy

Which fallacy?

Selection bias

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that isn't a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."[1] "Selection bias" isn't a recognized logical fallacy, in logical reasoning. "Selection bias" is a statistical bias in sampled data.

They put forth a premise, "With Linux and git being probably the most widely adopted open source software projects ever"

Then an inference, "Linus's approach is historical proof"

And a conclusion, "is the best way [to review code]".

Assuming we can accept the premise as true, you're left to attack the inference (whether or not Linus's approach is historical proof). You may disagree with the conclusion, but calling out a logical argument as a logical fallacy, and using that to dismiss the conclusion, is itself, a logical fallacy called a "fallacy fallacy"[2]

[1]: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[2]: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/fallacy-fallacy.html

I understand why it could be selection bias. Let's say there are 100 open source projects with openly hostile communication. Only Linux succeeds. You can't point to Linux as proof that hostile communication results in success based on that 1/100 chance.

Similarly you can't just use a single anecdote to prove anything either.

I agree that the argument could be expressed better, but I personally understood the intention.

Yes. They could have taken a moment to explain wtf they were talking about in both comments. It would have saved everyone a few moments of their day.

But sure. We can debate the premise.

If even only Linux and Git succeeded, out of hundreds of projects managed with hostility, that’s two projects; one guy. fWIW, out of hundreds of every other projects NOT managed with hostility (and similarly running on as many computers), most of those, that I’m aware of, aren’t flourishing like Linux is. Usually they suffer from attracting talent and people. Perhaps the hostility of Linus makes the projects more visible (bad news is good news in the PR world), and some people take it as a challenge to succeed there. Thus the project flourishes, vs. fail from lack of talent.

I’d also argue that I’ve (personally) let some truly shitty code into code bases at $dayjob over the years because there was simply no “nice way” to say it was so terrible. Trying to argue on technical merits would just go round-and-round until I gave up. I’m pretty sure I’ve used the same tactics a couple of times to merge some shitty code I don’t care about and actually want someone to rewrite if they ever need to change it.

The point is, had we have been hostile (and managed to not get fired), the code could be hundreds of times better. So, I’d be willing to bet, there isn’t a selection bias here and hostile behavior attracts talent (due to being highly visible; popcorn factor), forcing people to actually rethink really shitty code, and letting people be more candid about how they really feel.

I couldn’t disagree more. It’s simply a fact that the needless superlatives are verbose and distract from the point.

Congrats!? It’d be better if you could explain why… so there could be a discussion.

You’ve already made the point, otherwise you would’ve said:

“Jesus Christ, if you could just explain why then we could have a fucking discussion, yeah?”

Intuitively you already understand the point I am making :)

I attack with laughter and sarcasm. Other people have different coping mechanisms. Mine just happens to be socially acceptable atm. It wasn’t always, such as in school where I was accused of not taking things seriously.

His derisive "Congrats!?" would already be in violation of modern American corporate communication guidelines and policies. That sarcastic praise made me feel belittled. The exclamation mark made me feel threatened and unsafe. Failing to coddle me is aggression.

I suggest: "I disagree. The needless superlatives distract from the point."

It conveys the same message without needless verbosity.

True

Reply on news.ycombinator.com