masterspace

joined 2 years ago
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fair enough, I am just being overly angry and hateful.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

It's not the same idea, as I didn't advocated s studying them when they were authoritarian shitholes who were actively slaughtering their neighbours.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I don't have to, I just have to name one better than Russian. Learn Ukrainian, Polish, German, French Finnish, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Romanian, etc then consider Russian.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

German culture and heritage was destroyed by the world wars. What remains is not what was there pre-WWII.

And I'm not cancelling or destroying anything. I'm just prioritizing cultures worth preserving over those that have been poisoned by a century of dictatorship, misinformation, and hate.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Bruh what the fuck are you talking about?

You think that a user being upset when they give an app full filesystem access to their phone, and then having that app be handed over to some shady new owner is entitlement?

Congratulations man, 'skill issue' people like you are why open source software rarely takes off. No one will use or trust any open source software if this happens. This just pushes people to use tech giants like Google and Microsoft because they're big and stable and not about to change owners.

Don't fucking publish your software for people to download if you're going to pull the rug out from under them. Keep it on your local machine and jerk off to it if you don't care about others using it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you're saying, but even speaking specialist to specialist, or say to a group of specialist colleagues who might not be working on exactly what you're working on, you still often simplify away the technical parts that aren't relevant to the specific conversation you're having, and use specific language on the parts that are, because that inherently helps the listener to focus on the technical aspects you want them to focus on.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

If you're communicating with another scientist about the actual work you're doing then sure there are times when you need to be specific.

If you're publishing official documentation on something or writing contracts, then yes, you also need to be extremely speciific.

But if you're just providing a description of your work to a non-specialist then no, there's always a way of simplifying it for the appropriate context. Same thing goes for most of specialist to specialist communication. There are specific sentences and times you use the precision to distinguish between two different things, but if you insist on always speaking in maximum precision and accuracy then it is simply poor communication skills where you are over providing unnecessary detail that detracts from the actual point you're trying to convey.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Their literal entire first paragraph is about scientists doing it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

No, I'm talking about engineers and scientists communicating with project managers, designers, lawyers, business people, and the many many other people who work in the same industry but do not have technical backgrounds.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It is for a white collar job where most people have degrees.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (14 children)

Eh I don't really agree, depending on how simple you're talking. Bags within bags, or dumbing things down to a grade school level, then sure, there are topics that can't be described succinctly.

But if you're talking about simplifying things down to the point that anyone who took a bit of undergrad math/science can understand, then pretty much everything can be described in simple and easy to understand ways.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen many people at the top who can't, but in every case, it's not because of the topics' inherent complexity, but either because they don't actually understand the topics as well as they may seem, or because they lack the social skills (or time / effort / setting) to properly analogize and adjust for the listener.

view more: next ›