We don’t really need anything, including the this website. Insomuch as we need a social media platform a snarky response to the a very padded out article seems as “needed” as anything else. It’s...
We don’t really need anything, including the this website.
Insomuch as we need a social media platform a snarky response to the a very padded out article seems as “needed” as anything else.
It’s just a crazily long article for what is basically “the program is underfunded.”
Here's the context for my question: https://tildes.net/~tildes/1z6/discussion_bad_faith_our_goals_and_tildes https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/1oz/daily_tildes_discussion_quality_concerns
Yeah, I read those. It’s not a huge site, so I’d read them before you linked them. If you could provide the context of how those are related, rather than just linking them, it’d be awesome. It...
Yeah, I read those. It’s not a huge site, so I’d read them before you linked them.
If you could provide the context of how those are related, rather than just linking them, it’d be awesome. It almost feels like you just object because I didn’t try hard enough for you, on your post. But aren’t you now doing the same?
My post was not in bad faith, so I’m not actually sure how linking to a thread about hypnotoad is remotely appropriate. Please elaborate.
So in summation, I’ll reiterate my previous statement: “Insomuch as we need a social media platform a snarky response to the a very padded out article seems as “needed” as anything else.”
And go on to say I believe my post was absolutely appropriate for both this website and this thread. And that your gatekeeping is a pretty great way to turn people off of this site.
Edit: to that effect, I’ll link to another thread that provides context for my observation about your gatekeeping.
It feels like you’re more interested in scoring points with “do we really need garbage posts like yours?” Than providing legitimate feedback on what you want to see from a post like mine.
I would even argue your post about whether my post was sufficiently quality actually violates the principles outlined in your first link, in that it doesn’t add something to the discussion for both of us. It might make you feel better, but it neither intectuallt stimulates me or pleases me in any way. Nor does it provide a context for me to improve any of those things for myself or anyone else in the future.
Your post was basically “your post is unneeded garbage, you know that, right? I don’t think we need it here.” It had no avenue for improvement, it provided no context.
While it may have seemed to be a leading question and an attack, it was also an honest question. On a website where people are supposedly aiming for high-quality discussion, do TL;DRs serve any...
While it may have seemed to be a leading question and an attack, it was also an honest question. On a website where people are supposedly aiming for high-quality discussion, do TL;DRs serve any purpose? If someone's going to provide a high quality comment on an article, they should read the whole article, rather than a summary of it. Therefore, what's the point of summarising an article for people in the first place?
I've never understood the point of TL;DRs, even on Reddit. If there's a long article or a long post, then read the bloody thing. If you're not interested enough to read the whole post, then don't rely on a summary. I hate people who comment on Reddit without having read the article, only the headline. People who respond to summaries are nearly as bad.
Yes. Further, just because someone says “tldr, x” doesn’t inherently mean someone is discouraging others from reading. In this instance, it’s literally someone observing that the article is...
On a website where people are supposedly aiming for high-quality discussion, do TL;DRs serve any purpose?
Yes. Further, just because someone says “tldr, x” doesn’t inherently mean someone is discouraging others from reading. In this instance, it’s literally someone observing that the article is artificially padded and/or the title is bad.
Therefore, what's the point of summarising an article for people in the first place?
You’re assuming literally the only point of a statement is the direct one. There is no reason to assume that’s true. You’ve individually chosen to draw the lines around “quality discussion” without defining them.
Then, in addition to creating an individual definition without defining it for anyone else, you’ve chosen to enforce it. But your method of enforcement isn’t to win anyone over to your side of the argument, it’s to score points by being snarky.
Like I said earlier:
Your post was basically “your post is unneeded garbage, you know that, right? I don’t think we need it here.” It had no avenue for improvement, it provided no context.
If you want to provide context for improvement, I’m all for it. At no point in this engagement have you provided that. Please re read this interaction from the beginning with your “what makes quality discussion?” link in mind about your side of this conversation. I think it’ll be enlightening.
I'm a pretty huge space nerd, and Australian, and I'm still undecided if we should really be kicking off a major space program just yet. I'm all for expanding our meta-industries like the...
I'm a pretty huge space nerd, and Australian, and I'm still undecided if we should really be kicking off a major space program just yet. I'm all for expanding our meta-industries like the satellite tracking and space-related science (like CSIRO are doing), but I think we should be focusing on internal issues first. They're already destroying the ABC, Medicare, and other services "because money".
We're in wars we have no place being in, education and medical costs are constantly climbing while government support programs get gutted, our internet is an absolute bloody joke and outright shameful for a country as developed as ours, and so many more issues that could be addressed to boost us up to a more suitable position to be looking to the stars.
I think the idea is that an Australian Space Agency would become self-funding and probably even make a profit. The government probably neither wants nor expects to be supporting this agency in the...
I think the idea is that an Australian Space Agency would become self-funding and probably even make a profit. The government probably neither wants nor expects to be supporting this agency in the long term, so it doesn't see it as competing for funds with healthcare, welfare, and other government services. It can justify cutting funding to those because they're not investments in "jobs and growth", while this is an investment in "jobs and growth".
Tl;dr: they’re getting 4% of the annual budget they need if they want to have a remote chance of success.
Do we really need TL;DRs here?
We don’t really need anything, including the this website.
Insomuch as we need a social media platform a snarky response to the a very padded out article seems as “needed” as anything else.
It’s just a crazily long article for what is basically “the program is underfunded.”
Here's the context for my question:
https://tildes.net/~tildes/1z6/discussion_bad_faith_our_goals_and_tildes
https://tildes.net/~tildes.official/1oz/daily_tildes_discussion_quality_concerns
Yeah, I read those. It’s not a huge site, so I’d read them before you linked them.
If you could provide the context of how those are related, rather than just linking them, it’d be awesome. It almost feels like you just object because I didn’t try hard enough for you, on your post. But aren’t you now doing the same?
My post was not in bad faith, so I’m not actually sure how linking to a thread about hypnotoad is remotely appropriate. Please elaborate.
So in summation, I’ll reiterate my previous statement: “Insomuch as we need a social media platform a snarky response to the a very padded out article seems as “needed” as anything else.”
And go on to say I believe my post was absolutely appropriate for both this website and this thread. And that your gatekeeping is a pretty great way to turn people off of this site.
Edit: to that effect, I’ll link to another thread that provides context for my observation about your gatekeeping.
https://tildes.net/~tildes/1sh/tildes_effect#comment-idp
It feels like you’re more interested in scoring points with “do we really need garbage posts like yours?” Than providing legitimate feedback on what you want to see from a post like mine.
I would even argue your post about whether my post was sufficiently quality actually violates the principles outlined in your first link, in that it doesn’t add something to the discussion for both of us. It might make you feel better, but it neither intectuallt stimulates me or pleases me in any way. Nor does it provide a context for me to improve any of those things for myself or anyone else in the future.
Your post was basically “your post is unneeded garbage, you know that, right? I don’t think we need it here.” It had no avenue for improvement, it provided no context.
While it may have seemed to be a leading question and an attack, it was also an honest question. On a website where people are supposedly aiming for high-quality discussion, do TL;DRs serve any purpose? If someone's going to provide a high quality comment on an article, they should read the whole article, rather than a summary of it. Therefore, what's the point of summarising an article for people in the first place?
I've never understood the point of TL;DRs, even on Reddit. If there's a long article or a long post, then read the bloody thing. If you're not interested enough to read the whole post, then don't rely on a summary. I hate people who comment on Reddit without having read the article, only the headline. People who respond to summaries are nearly as bad.
I don't want us to import that culture here.
Yes. Further, just because someone says “tldr, x” doesn’t inherently mean someone is discouraging others from reading. In this instance, it’s literally someone observing that the article is artificially padded and/or the title is bad.
You’re assuming literally the only point of a statement is the direct one. There is no reason to assume that’s true. You’ve individually chosen to draw the lines around “quality discussion” without defining them.
Then, in addition to creating an individual definition without defining it for anyone else, you’ve chosen to enforce it. But your method of enforcement isn’t to win anyone over to your side of the argument, it’s to score points by being snarky.
Like I said earlier:
If you want to provide context for improvement, I’m all for it. At no point in this engagement have you provided that. Please re read this interaction from the beginning with your “what makes quality discussion?” link in mind about your side of this conversation. I think it’ll be enlightening.
I'm a pretty huge space nerd, and Australian, and I'm still undecided if we should really be kicking off a major space program just yet. I'm all for expanding our meta-industries like the satellite tracking and space-related science (like CSIRO are doing), but I think we should be focusing on internal issues first. They're already destroying the ABC, Medicare, and other services "because money".
We're in wars we have no place being in, education and medical costs are constantly climbing while government support programs get gutted, our internet is an absolute bloody joke and outright shameful for a country as developed as ours, and so many more issues that could be addressed to boost us up to a more suitable position to be looking to the stars.
I think the idea is that an Australian Space Agency would become self-funding and probably even make a profit. The government probably neither wants nor expects to be supporting this agency in the long term, so it doesn't see it as competing for funds with healthcare, welfare, and other government services. It can justify cutting funding to those because they're not investments in "jobs and growth", while this is an investment in "jobs and growth".