Its hardly sharp; nor cutting; and there was no scorn.
So more a semi-humorous, semi-serious observation that: a) with 8 rules, simple is not so simple; b) maybe those rules could (should) be encapsulated.
Of course, once you decide that simple requires rules; there can be discussion and even disagreement about what the rules should be.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
Its hardly sharp; nor cutting; and there was no scorn. I really meant to link [wikit://sarcasm] as in Insincerely saying something which is the opposite of one's intended meaning, often to emphasize how unbelievable or unlikely it sounds if taken literally, thereby illustrating the obvious nature of one's intended meaning.
I guess there are shades of sarcasm, and I meant light sarcasm ...
Man, words are hard to interpret :)
| [reply] |
and I meant light sarcasm ...
Indeed. But my bad.
My "fay'ure to com-mooni-kayt", and someone's hair trigger, have stiffled what might have a been an interesting and useful discussion.
Man, words are hard to interpret :)
Absolutely. And we are (probably;I'm guessing) two people divided by a common language. And it gets so much worse when one or more parties to the discussion are not using their native tongues.
And that's (one of many good reasons) why natural language comments have no place in describing algorithms.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |