The microblog: 2020.12.06 21:13:07

2020.12.06 21:13:07 (1335678681289658370) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)" (1335652573366325248):

Can you elaborate on what's bothering you about the example? For me the shocking level of observed inefficiency is the critical point. This leads into the broader question of what inefficiencies there are in the process, how tools influence this, how we can measure this, etc.


2020.12.06 19:26:39 (1335651888025411589) from "danny "disco" mcClanahan (@hipsterelectron)", replying to "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)" (1335650251026423808):

it just looks weird when you bring up microsoft word’s great reputation to belabor a minor point. there must be something i’m missing about saying “you have to work really hard to break word’s automagic numbering”.

2020.12.06 19:26:47 (1335651921185693703) from "danny "disco" mcClanahan (@hipsterelectron)", replying to "danny "disco" mcClanahan (@hipsterelectron)" (1335651888025411589):

i think that idea is absurd and i didn’t understand your goal in saying it. and i tagged you because idk it felt *less* aggressive than the alternative somehow. but i was def wrong about that, sorry

2020.12.06 19:27:08 (1335652007076458497) from "danny "disco" mcClanahan (@hipsterelectron)", replying to "danny "disco" mcClanahan (@hipsterelectron)" (1335651921185693703):

not trying to cause a confrontation i swear

2020.12.06 19:29:23 (1335652573366325248) from "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)", replying to "danny "disco" mcClanahan (@hipsterelectron)" (1335652007076458497):

I felt that the example didn’t serve the point it was trying to make, and that there were better examples that could have been used. And, as others have attested, since this illustration is at the outset of the post it can cause a reader to disconnect.