Stop saying "just" (2019)
sgringwe.com
sgringwe.com
> If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
Not true.
That said, Lopatin below also makes a valid counterpoint.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-the-c...
> The argument for voting is very Kantian: “act so that if everyone acted so…” and “if no literally one voted then voting would matter again” but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy. And in any case this is not an actual causality. When you vote you don’t magically cause everyone else like you to vote, you are a distinct agent with distinct internal thoughts. Your individual actions have only very weak externalities beyond the direct consequences of your choice/vote.
> Unfortunately the delusional thinking behind voting crops up in leftist inclinations in general. They want to build giant organizations, giant armies, with individuals all acting in low return-on-investment ways, in hopes of aggregate impact. They don’t search for opportunities of high impact individual direct action.
I was getting into an argument with some people who were yelling at me for voting third party in the USA federal election. Because I'm a Texas voter it's my fault the state won't turn blue. "If all Texas non voters voted, and if all third party voters voted democrat, the state would turn blue." And if only people would just stop committing crime, if only people would just not steal from their employees, if only people would just Do The Right Thing...
Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
As a previous water-carrier for this form of “if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain” propaganda, it’s crap. If there isn’t one single person you want to vote for on the ballot, you’re fully entitled to not vote and complain loudly about it. Making the choice to not exercise the one right does not preclude anyone’s use of the other.
Why not?
That said there are more than people on ballots to vote for, and some of those things (open space, conceal and carry laws, abortion restrictions, school choice) are possibly more important than the people at the top of the ticket because as local measures they have a higher chance to directly affect you.
All of that is irrelevant.
Choosing not to exercise your right to vote is a valid choice, and choosing not to exercise that right does not preclude you from complaining about electoral outcomes and the policies of the extant and future governments.
Sure. But it means I take you as seriously as I would any arm chair quarterback complaining about sports.
Ultimately, I find the supposed "principled non-voter" to simply just be selfish.
Voting someone into office is inherently about electing them into a position of power. Generally that means voters are going to prefer someone who is aligned with their interests. If you examine a ballot and determine that that is no one running, then it is fine to draw the conclusion that you would prefer to skip this election.
Voting also has consequences. If your world view is not developed enough to determine who that person would be, it is also fine to wait until you’re older before you begin voting in elections. Elections are recurring, it isn’t necessary to vote in every single one of them, and on every single item on the ballot until you have an interest in doing so.
It is just a relevant riff on the tired if you don't vote, don't complain BS.
Soap box mode = 1
Yes you do get to complain same as anyone does whether you or anyone voted or not.
Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
In the US, voting is not mandatory.
Casting voting as a condition of redressing ones grievances with government is actually just a psyops version of manufactured consent.
If you are inclined to consent, and you feel a vote is worth casting, by all means vote!
Maybe you think the whole thing lacks legitimacy? And you want to vote indie or third party or maybe even participate in ratfucking by voting for the very worst candidate a given party could get stuck with?
By all means vote.
Otherwise you are not required to vote and not voting is just fine.
You remain a citizen. The Constitution still applies and all that stuff we know and expect is exactly the same whether we vote or not.
Encouraging others to vote for many other reasons is fine too. Don't get me wrong there.
I am very specifically calling out the idea of ones participation in this US society being predicated on a vote.
That is just not true, and I really dislike advocacy rooted in falsehoods like this kind of advocacy always is.
Soap box mode = 0
Maybe I will take a look at this library myself!
You should vote in a way that moves the needle the way you want it to move.
>but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy
This is why no one takes anarchists seriously.
Now, the problem is not voting for first parties. It's lack of mandatory voting, and FPTP voting. Change it to ranked choice and suddenly third party votes wouldn't be wasted votes.
* Brushing their teeth, about a hundred years ago
* Regularly washing their hands, maybe 150 years? Less?
Etc.
Of course you can find people who still don't/do all of these and any other examples you come up with. But the point is that society as a whole has changed their view of these things, and what was abnormal is now normal. Which I'm pretty is what the "if people would just" folk really mean. Nobody is dumb enough to expect 100% of people to change 100% of the time, and it's unfair to their intelligence to assume that's what they mean.
Edit: removed one example that was too emotional and distracted from the point.
* I don't think there's actually any scientific studies proving brushing works, but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body. Same with flossing.
* I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
* I don't use shampoo either, it was brought from India just 200 years ago. Anti-dandruff shampoo isn't real and we don't even know exactly what causes it.
Outwardly I'm a pretty normal person.
It's not because you touched your penis, it's because you're going to touch things in the world that other people will also touch and you respect other people's preference not to touch your penis bacteria because you're not a sociopath. Right?
I think I spotted the flaw in your line of thinking.
Vs putting a hand on their bare hip, then shaking your hand.
Also, groin sweat smells different and probably has extra hormones/pheromones in it
Maybe that didn't just remove their KFC-greased, butthole-stinky finger from their nose before we shook hands, or maybe they did.
It isn't that hard to make an agar plate and put it under a lamp for a few days. Why you try a swab of crotch juice and a swab of face juice and incubate them each and see what you get?
Assuming you go to the bathroom 3-7 times a day, that's that many opportunities to wash off the dirt you were digging in, trash you picked up off the street or someone else's hand you shook.
> but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body
You can use miswak, which is a type of twig.
Alcogel for hands and alcoholic mouthwash are things to be sure but they aren't nearly as common.
With tooth-brushing and hand-washing people actually didn't know it was that good for you. So massive public health education campaigns about how they prevent acute illnesses turned out to be enough to get significant adherence. That both are very low-cost / low-burden / low-effort activities are also reasons that education on the benefits was enough.
(And educating the next generation of children to instill proper tooth-brushing and hand-washing as habits remains a perpetual ongoing effort; kids do not "just" either, they need to be educated the same way.)
Compare this to many "why won't everyone just" issues where the information is already out - merely re-proclaiming stuff already known by the audience that-will-not-just, and expecting that to turn the needle, is nonsensical.
"If everyone would just wash their hands."
"Why can't you just..."
That conversation should be a significant part of software development, and usually the answer is "no we can't just do that, because it wouldn't do what we are trying to do", or "yes, but it's not actually as simple as you seem to believe". Sometimes the answer is "yes, we can just do that" and everyone should be glad when that is the case.
If you can't handle normal engineering criticism, then you are an imposter. Real engineers generate alternatives, and evaluate alternatives proposed to them.
> If you can't handle normal engineering criticism, then you are an imposter.
It's not normal engineering criticism though. "Just" is (in)famously known as a term that you use when you're overconfident while missing the whole picture. In many universities around here they will teach you about the dangers of it. Because it's really not good engineering to not do your analytics before suggesting solutions. I think most of us are guilty of using it. In my current team we laugh about it. We have a sort of swear jaw mentality when someone uses the term unironically, usually called out by the person who did it themselves. It's now a term we mostly use it as an internal joke, however, and people are never going to miss an opportunity to call the most complex challenges "just" in the most hilarious way they can.
Our language matters more than just linguistically, it matters culturally.
So, when someone wants to delete a word or usage, well it requires a lot of thought about the implications.
Sometimes it's a good thing, a lot of times there is a charged , sometimes political, motivation behind the desire for change.
There is always a gap between what we mean to say and how the actual words we use are received on the other side. Only if we are able to anticipate how our choice of words might be received within different contexts we have a chance to narrow that gap. And since language is an interpersonal, intercultural, intergenerational beast that is not an easy achievment.
The worst we can do is assume language as a fixed static thing that isn't allowed to evolve over time and has one definitive meaning for all people always.
That means understanding how words are received is always beneficial to people who want to communicate effectively — whether you avoid words because you know what thoughts/feelings theh produce in others is more a question of your character and your upbringing.
Nice deployment of 'solely.' I can see you did not want to say 'just because.'
I am currently working on getting rid of "I think" and ending statements with a "haha" (I hate this one). Sometimes I write a work message like: "I think we can just create a new token for it haha" and I want to slap myself. haha.
If I wrote that sentence as "We can create a new token for it" instant boost in respect from my peers and director level promotion in the works.
OP: Well it's not always as simple as that. How will you get to the gym? Will you drive or ride a bike? What if there are other people using your usual weight machines, do you wait or do cardio? If you're working out after work, will you need to bring a change of clothes? How will my diet affect my workout? And how can I track my fitness to ensure I'm making progress?
Sometimes the answer is to just inject that JavaScript snippet. Of course all the follow up questions that OP mentioned to injecting that JS snippet are valid. But that is part of the "just". The person "just"ing that has assumed that you will consider all of those caveats and there should be no issues, because after all, why would there be if millions of people already use it without issue? It's up to the engineer to just do it, or push back if it's not actually as simple as it seems.
Indeed. "Just" implies an assumption has been made, but it's not clear what assumptions nor whether they are justified.
Which makes it very nice for getting your assumptions checked.
What's wrong with this? That seems like proper usage to me. What the author has an issue with seems to be snobby, snarky, or sarcastic usage of the word "just."
Sometimes, the best answer is in fact "just add a DNS record."
The author should just write that instead of this long blog-post that gives the impression of someone easily offended.
Your claim is that people are too easily offended and so maybe these people will be (too) easily offend by the word. So what's really the benefit of using the word?
I mean if we're really debating question length then omitting the just also works... "Add a DNS record?" is sufficient.
Disagree with people's heuristics too often and you might find yourself looking for a job.
Why not (just) answer with "Add a DNS record." ?
There is weird symmetry here.
Just write a better article yourself.
It might "just" be simple to you, but that could be with your years of knowledge. Write for your audience. If it's an informational blogpost? "just" might annoy people who do get confused because they think it should be easy. "Just" make the app.
Step 1. Draw a circle.
Step 2. Just finish the lion.
Why can't you draw from my instructions?
The same principle is why I try not to teach any game as "Simple", even when it is to me. Some people cannot follow rules to a game, no matter how simple, and then are frustrated when the "simple" game doesn't come to them. Why add that layer of negativity?
Of course, one can use the word "just" in a cynical or abusive way. Banning the word does not in any way solve that problem. Some people are cynical and want to say things cynically. Some people want to do some abusing. Don't curtail English itself to solve a problem with bad intentions.
I often use the word "just" when I want to communicate that I think there might be a simple solution. It is not wrong to communicate that!
I often use the word "just" to indicate that one reason is much more important than any other reason as in "maybe you just don't like people to imply that you've missed an obvious solution." This may be the truth. Don't try to tell me I cannot speak the truth.
Do not unjustly criticize the proper use of "just."
"It's just so simple" -> "I's mercifully simple".
"It's just only a tiny change" -> "By mercy, it's but a tiny change".
"Just do it" -> "Have mercy, do it".
</ha-ha-only-serious>
ill sell her ine.lol
Outside of slurs, blanket avoidance of words mostly just adds unnecessary obfuscation.
"How long should this take? It's JUST calling an API."
"Why did it take so long to fix that bug? It was JUST a one line change."
"Stripe handles payment stuff, we JUST need to add it in!"
What a devious little word. It just papers over all the complexity!
I was once asked if I could just do X and I said I'd have to spend hours ripping out Y and debugging its replacement. It'd slow down development and if there were any features from X they wanted, it'd be faster for me to write them for Y. Did they still want X? They didn't.
Another time I was prepared to build a robust, modular system with its own interface for everyone on the team to use. I mean, really put in the hours and design the hell out of that thing. And somebody said "Hey, can't you just do X?"
Sure, it'd take me five minutes. But you wouldn't get features A through F--you don't want any of those? They didn't.
I just did X.
"I can't spare this man. He fights." -Lincoln
Why I stopped using the word “just” and why the #justaGP narrative has to stop
Just means, my suggestion seems unreasonably simple to me. It means I am looking for, and expecting, a reason it doesn't work. The downside is if the suggestion does work, you can make someone feel stupid. But it is a great tool to get up to speed on a hatd problem to learn why the 'obvious' solutions won't work.
> If someone’s having to read your docs, it’s not “simple” https://justsimply.dev/
Reality has a surprising amount of detail
A lot of things are like this, and so to excise the word “just” would be to stop using a word that often concisely and accurately conveys what I’m trying to say.
It would be better if the article just said “this is rude.”
> I think the thing is simple, that the details are unimportant (to me, to us)
…and simply be ignorant of a lot of the details that make this not simple for the person who has to "just".
I had such a "discussion" with someone who did exactly this and then refused to even acknowledge there are technical details in their "just" and that their "just" involves multiple wasted person days of effort (in this case for little benefit, as their "just" was to paint over them having to do something themselves). It's infuriating.
Now, the "just" isn't the only part of the problem here, but it will most likely the part where any useful discussion breaks down.
And, while I can blame my encounter on a person with… problematic particularities, it isn't obvious to me that one would always be able to discern easily if one is walking into the same trap.
I often say to myself, "Can't this problem be fixed with just <x>.." then when I go to fix it implement the solution it takes way longer than expected.
I'm a self-taught tech savvy, I'm aware of where I come from and how far I've come. And I'm deeply annoyed when I see this almost condescending expression in various tech communities online.
Very reassured that I'm not the only one feeling that way.
Also, everyone who claims impostor syndrome in software is just actually an impostor.
Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but that is a frankly astounding claim. Anyone can have a crisis of confidence. It doesn’t mean you’re a fraud.
"we just have to..." from me, means it will take just[0] an order or two magnitude more work than you expect.
[0] see what I did there?
Side note, I think the reason half of silicon valley has imposter syndrome is because they don't stick around for more than 1.8 years. It took me over a year for it to go away. Just chill out folks. You're doing fine. Stick around. Let's build up some knowledge and just make things better, okay?