On February 12, 2017 3:10:07 AM PST, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> wrote: >On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Christopher Havel ><laserhaw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Julie, while I appreciate your efforts at convincing our kind leader >here to >> change his mind, you're not going to make any headway. And, for the >record, >> one of the reasons that Luke has trouble explaining things is because >he has >> Asperger's Syndrome, a form of Autism and a disorder primarily >affecting >> communication and social skills. I have Asperger's as well, and so I >can >> appreciate how it sometimes renders one speechless, or forces one to >use the >> wrong words for things -- often at a sensitive time. >> >> It's unbelievably frustrating. > > ... would you believe it, my conversations with dr stallman cause >*me* to have to take deep breaths on a regular basis. > > chris, i appreciate your insight (from personal experience) here. >your phrasing is, in places, as bad as mine can be, but i know your >heart's in the right place. > > it is a recurring theme from interactions with people around me that >they in effect ask "give me ONE good reason why i should listen to >you", and i simply... can't. the reason is: my brain simply doesn't >work that way. > > in researching why that is, i came across something called "demster >shafer theory". it's a generalisation of bayes theorem, and i was >interested in it as a way to work out *why* i was good at >reverse-engineering (from my work on samba) but also to find out if >there was a way to *improve* my ability as a reverse-engineer and >knowledge derivation expert. > > demster-shafer theory basically says that you may statistically >derive a result by taking two *independent* variables in a >massively-complex field, work out the probability of them occurring >together (independently) then you are permitted to *REPEAT* that >exercise and to *SUM* the resultant totally independent results as a >way to gain a statistically-valid result across the ENTIRE FIELD. > > in this context, the question "give me ONE good reason" is a >completely INVALID one. > > hence, can you (all) understand that if you ask me "give me ONE good >reason" i LITERALLY cannot do that. i could however give you about a >hundred SMALLER reasons each with a low statistical probability of >them occurring. > >... but it would overwhelm you to do so, you would (as you have >clearly done so) REJECT the entire APPROACH that i've taken because >it's NOT SOMETHING YOU UNDERSTAND AS BEING VALID. > >i come across this time and time again, in the physics forums i'm on, >on free software mailing lists, at workplaces where i can tell there's >something deeply wrong from a whole stack of clues but i CAN'T >VOCALISE THEM ALL. > >my brain *literally* works in a completely different way from most >people's on the planet, in a massively-parallel statistical-inference >fashion that hugely and rapidly short-cuts areas of avenue that would >cause most people to get stuck and waste months to decades of their >life investigating to no avail... but this type of approach is NOT >what the human brain was designed to do, and it comes with a heavy >penalty both for my health but also in terms of making it REALLY >difficult to justify the conclusions (or "intuitions") that my brain >flags up as being so brightly "red" that i can no more ignore them >than i could if they were say actual threats on my life. > >i would *really* appreciate your patience on this. knowing what i do >about myself, i deliberately tackle areas that nobody else does. >unfortunately, what's happened in the past is that people have stolen >the results and the credit for the work that i've done. did you know >for example that the openchange project's success is down to my work >(not theirs) in reverse-engineering exchange 5.5 back around 2003? of >course you don't... because after tracking my research continually >they DIDN'T MENTION WHERE THEY GOT THE INFORMATION FROM. > > that means that you BELIEVE i am not worth respecting, because my >name is not up there in neon lights next to those of "linus torvalds" >or "eric raymond" or "bruce perens" or any other person you've heard >of and respect in software libre for their achievements. > >i act in the background, tackling the things that these people *CAN'T* >understand and, because of their position, couldn't deal with anyway >because they now have too much responsibility in their chosen field of >expertise and endeavour to consider abandoning the people who now >depend on them. > >put another way: > >systemd has a huge - MASSIVE - series of independent statistical >correlations associated with it, none of them INDIVIDUALLY being >statistically significant or indicative of anything (because they're >independent events) but when added up overall, using demster-shafer >theory, give support for the hypothesis that there is something >deeply, deeply wrong with systemd with a confidence level somewhere >around 4 sigma. i simply cannot ignore that, but equally i cannot >really explain it in ways that you would ACCEPT, either, because my >name is not "linus torvalds" or "dr richard stallman". > >anyway. the fact that the 3.4 kernel has to be used makes it entirely >moot. which reminds me the last time this happened, was when i was >working in portsmouth, something similar happened. i was ORDERED to >deploy ubuntu, but could not explain or vocalise the dozens of reasons >why that was a bad idea. finally one of the sysadmins got fed up of >hearing the discussion, did some research and found that canonical had >long since terminated support for 486 processors. > >so please. understand. sometimes i *can't give you a concrete >reason* because there are instead potentially *hundreds* of >lower-probability ones, some of which i'm not even consciously aware >of.
I think it's possible for people to learn to understand and trust your intuition. After all, a lot of good leaders make decisions based on uncanny intuition. -- Eric Duhamel http://www.noxbanners.net/ _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk