| |
| ▲ | dataflow 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > There are many people who don't seem to know the different between work and life and so they may conflate the two, but to me it's pretty obvious. Nobody is conflating anything, you're just misinterpreting the same words with different meanings. A professional criticism can, in fact, be unprofessional, and even a personal attack. These are not mutually exclusive. > Those are not personal criticisms You're using "personal" to mean "regarding non-professional matters", whereas others are using "personal" to mean "regarding the individual person themselves". > those are all professional criticisms You're using "professional" to mean "regarding the profession" whereas others are using to mean... you know, the opposite of "unprofessional". | | |
| ▲ | dpatterbee 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, professional has two meanings in use here. Professional as in relating to one's profession, and professional as in how one may be expected to behave when carrying out one's profession. In my comment I was using the former. I'm not really sure what you're on about me "misinterpreting" something. The author of the article claimed to not have personal criticisms, and I was pointing out that there's a standard interpretation of those words that is true. | |
| ▲ | bananaquant 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > others are using "personal" to mean "regarding the individual person themselves" Following your logic, we cannot critique anyone in particular ever. How absurd! > You're using "professional" to mean "regarding the profession" whereas others are using to mean... you know, the opposite of "unprofessional". At the end of the day, it is the same thing. Person does what is their job according to common standards. Andrew runs a software foundation, and it is his job to make sure that behavior of one of related projects does not disrupt the stream of all donations or bury his project under a pile of slop submissions. Highlighting the technical dysfunctions of the other project is an effective way to show the differences between the two. Do you have a suggestion that would be just as effective, while being more "professional"? | | |
| ▲ | milch 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think there's a world of a difference between "you wrote some code and it sucks" to "you wrote some code and it sucks because you have beginner energy and live in a fever dream". The former can be an objective statement without attribution to personal failings, while the latter... not really. If I put the latter as a PR comment to my intern in the morning I would expect a meeting invite from HR by the afternoon at the latest | |
| ▲ | dminik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh, you can actually. But you have to bring receipts, otherwise it very well could be libel. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dwattttt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "a stinky manager ... Just a total shit show" are examples I would reach for to demonstrate someone is not being professional. | | |
| ▲ | dpatterbee 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know why choice of language is having such sway in determining what you view as professional. Maybe it's just a cultural difference but where I'm from people just use the words they need to to communicate what they're trying to say. If something's a shit show I'd prefer someone just said it rather than dancing around it with corpo-speak. | | |
| ▲ | dwattttt 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't know why choice of language is having such sway in determining what you view as professional This is a blog post: it's purely textual, language is the only thing it uses to convey meaning. The words chosen to do so reflect what the author thinks. > where I'm from people just use the words they need to to communicate what they're trying to say Yes. What ark is trying to say, via the words he chose, is what's earning him the description of "unprofessional". He could say every factual thing in the blog post without being unprofessional, he just chose not to. | | |
| ▲ | dpatterbee 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you're, intentionally or not, misinterpreting my comment. Language is used to convey meaning, and Andrew wrote words that presumably meant what he meant them to mean. However, in many comments on here people are not commenting on "what he meant them to mean" and instead focusing on which words he chose to convey that meaning. I'm sure Andrew could've switched out every word in the post and still conveyed the same meaning, and perhaps offended the peanut gallery's sensibilities a little less, but why should he? In the example I was originally replying to, suppose Andrew had instead said "Jarred showed poorer than desired management abilities" and "Employees disliked working at Oven". Approximately the same message is communicated, a little watered-down maybe, but who's gaining from this tone-policing? Certainly not us, the readers. And I don't see how this affects how "professional" this is, unless "professional" is just performative nonsense and nothing to do with the substance of the text? | | |
| ▲ | dwattttt 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > And I don't see how this affects how "professional" this is, unless "professional" is just performative nonsense and nothing to do with the substance of the text? It changes my opinion of whether I trust ark to actually be right, or whether he has (and will continue to) let his emotions get in the way. The particular quote I noted was > We probably tried to tell you to try enabling it and you didn't listen. We have good advice, damn it! He wanted to say this, more than he wanted to know if he was right. It reduces my trust in his judgement. | | |
| ▲ | dpatterbee 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you normally assume that if someone shows any emotion that that emotion is "get[ting] in the way"? People's emotions are influenced by real things, and they don't have to speak dispassionately about those things. Especially when the blog post is entitled "My Thoughts on ---". I don't know what you're getting at with your final paragraph, I feel like he's in a pretty good position to assert something he probably did or did not do. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dminik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As someone from a cultural background that is considered very direct and blunt, I can say that there is a rather fine line between being direct and being an asshole. This post devolves into a personal attack one sentence in. There was no reason to go into Jared's life at all to begin with. The entire post doesn't need to exist at all if you're confident that Bun leaving will have zero or even positive impact. Why turn an already negative event of a slop rewrite into drama? It's petty and immature. | | |
| ▲ | dminik 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Also notice how I didn't have to bring up Andrew soiling his Pampers when he was a wee beginner. | | |
| ▲ | Mawr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's a good thing there's nothing of the sort in TFA then? Quoting: "He moved fast and tried a lot of different stuff, jumping head first into problems that he was not yet equipped to solve, leading to mediocre outcomes in terms of engineering, but learning a whole heck of a lot in the process. I see it as quite a healthy attitude, particularly for young people and students. This is the best way to level up and learn new things." I don't know, maybe you just don't understand what he's saying here? Or rather, are applying some sort of a negative spin to what is a factual analysis of a valid approach to doing something? | | |
| ▲ | dminik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | My issue with the paragraph is that it doesn't really connect into anything meaningful. It's just saying that Jarred was a beginner. The only connection it has is as a segue into calling Jarred a terrible manager here: > It was at this point - when he suddenly became a manager - that this "beginner energy" started to hit differently for me. Note how "beginner energy" is considered good in the first paragraph, but suddenly terrible when applied to a different thing here. Terrible work culture aside, and the fact that it seemingly worked out for those who joined aside, Jarred would obviously have beginner energy in management as well considering he's not done it before. Why is it suddenly bad here? Honest question, is there any record of Andrew actually saying Jarred had "beginner energy," or was this invented for the post as well? |
|
| |
| ▲ | dpatterbee 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you view that first sentence as a personal attack I'm not really sure what response I can make here. As a sentence it almost says nothing at all. 'When Jarrad started he gave off a real "starting" vibe'. Also I learned nothing about Jarred's life from this post, so I don't understand that point. That he lives or lived in San Francisco I guess, and didn't go to university? | | |
| ▲ | dminik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, first off, it's literally the first sentence of a post which is ~62% about Jared, ~26% about the rewrite itself and 10% closing thoughts. It also sets up Jared as a beginner who apparently never learned. Again, this post never needed to say anything about Jared. It looks weird to pull him in in literally the first sentence. It really shows what you're actually writing about. | | |
| ▲ | dpatterbee 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This blog post about Jarred never needed to say anything about Jarred? What on Earth does that mean? It is a response to a blog post written by Jarred, about actions taken by Jarred, and yet you think Jarred shouldn't have been mentioned. | | |
| ▲ | dminik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not really titled "My Thoughts on the scumbag Jarred Sumner" though, is it? Nor does Jarred's post even mention Andrew by name. Should Jarred's post have mentioned how Andrew kept bikeshedding Bun code style and how he always felt superior about others? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | threatofrain 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's true, claims of professional dishonesty is a kind of professional criticism. Shall we begin discussing whether Jarred is the kind of person who makes up fake conversations about Andrew? As fellow professionals in this field, shall we engage in this very professional debate about Jarred's honesty as a moral human being? | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
