![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Remember: When that hacker tells you that you've screwed up, and (no matter how gruffly) tells you not to do it again, he's acting out of concern for (1) you and (2) his community. It would be much easier for him to ignore you and filter you out of his life." -- Eric S. Raymond and Rick Moen, "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
(no subject)
Basically, this answer institutionalizes and rationalized the hacker's poor behavior. The hacker needs to learn how to advise people in a way that the listener learn from and respond to. This is a hard and complicated challenge. And it's not always possible. However, the rewards to this skill are immense.
(no subject)
Okay, yeah, there's a certain irony in that, though he's talking about a particular interaction in a particular environment here...
"The hacker needs to learn how to advise people in a way that the listener learn from and respond to."
I say you're both right. Eric's statements are true, but overlook (out of tunnel-vision or out of a desire to not complicate the point) the optimization you point out. Yes, the hacker is defending his environment and attempting to educate, and yes, this would be much more effective if the recipients didn't need a lesson in how to listen to it.
(I don't claim to be perfect, but I try to make a point of explaining in other people's communication styles why what they've done is wrong for the medium they're using, even when an irate voice in the back of my head is muttering, "useless clueless newbie begone". That includes trying to lead them rather than merely stating that they screwed up. Maybe when I'm eighty I'll take the time to go through my mail archives and try to figure out how well or poorly I've done at this.)
(no subject)
You don't like the color stationary he's using, so you don't read the letter.
It's the color stationary he happened to have at hand. He didn't get up and cross the room to get the engraved letterhead.
Live with it.
It would be nice if he could explain things to you the way _you_ want them explained. But if it gets to be too much trouble, he'll just stop bothering. And the loss is going to be yours, not his.
It's amazing that any of the people who talk seriously to computers can still talk to humans after. I'd like my really competent surgeon to have a decent bedside manner, but if he doesn't, I can live with it. I can't live with an incompetent, caring surgeon.
(no subject)
Good communication takes work. Good communication requires two people willing to talk and work at it until points and understood or ideas conveyed. Both sides must learn and adapt. Both sides must translate. Quite honestly, it's hard but worthwhile work.
An idea is conveyed with both a message and a messenger. Both must succeed for the idea to reach its destination. It is wrong to blame with the speaker or the listener, yet both responsiblity for the failure.
(no subject)
Every day, a person has others telling them multiple things, with conflicting priorities, and without any solutions. Likewise, they see problems every day, and they point these out to others. In the workplace, this is the constant grind. This is the rule, not the exception.
Given this situation, a hacker, doing someone a favor by telling them something that they need to know, is just like everyone else. Everyone is giving information all the time and constantly. The distinguishing factor is not whether you give someone information that they need to know, it's whether you help them to understand how that imformation impacts them, work out an action, and negociate a priority for that action. The person who does those things gets listened to and has their points acted upon.
A person who just tells people things will find that their information is pushed to the bottom of the list and not acted upon. Thus, the hacker's information often is often disregarded and ignored.