I’m genuinely just curious: can we not assume some of those scientists doing software development could also be acting harmfully or pointlessly?
Edited 157d ago
@james @levampyre @samir I think you might have accidentally read "most of the non-pointless software is being made by ... scientists" as "most of the scientists developing software are making non-pointless software," but I don't think that was ever said. Like if someone said most NASA engineers are neurodivergent, it wouldn't mean most neurodivergent people are NASA engineers
But like I get it, I switch things like that all the time
@raphaelmorgan @levampyre @samir
I didn’t, no.
I was simply wondering how levampyre could come to the conclusion that of the non-pointless software out there, is mostly made by scientists and the like. And not generic non-scientist developers.
I did not think the suggestion was that most scientists make non-pointless software.
Whilst I understand you were trying to be helpful, it’s really uncomfortable to be told by someone else what I was thinking and have it framed in this way.
Perhaps it was my wording that I fucked up, but I’d appreciate requests to explain rather than being told I did wrong.
Edited 156d ago
@james Oh, scientists amongst others, because people, who are neither developers, nor scientists in some way, have a personal need to write a lot of software. It's an assumption, true. Convince me otherwise. I'm open to learning.
@james sorry for causing you discomfort. I have a tendency to try and clear up misunderstandings because that's what I would want in the situation, but I'm reminded I can't assume others think like me even if I relate to a lot of the things they say. I'll make a note not to do that to you in the future.
And thank you for explaining what you were saying, because evidently I was confused 😅
I definitely understand, and can and do the same, hashtag James has autism.
in my specific instance I didn’t misunderstand at all which is where the upset comes from. I’m someone who struggles to be understood a lot and it’s quite a challenge for me as an autistic person, so when someone tells me I am communicating or interpreting wrong, I believe them. But then I saw that no, I didn’t have a wrong interpretation.
As I said, it’d be better to frame it as questions. Like tell me you don’t understand, could I re explain? Not tell me I don’t understand.
Edited 156d ago
@levampyre @raphaelmorgan @samir
I don’t want to convince you, I just wanted to learn more about what you thought and why :)
Like, “this is interesting, but I don’t know how they reached this conclusion, I would like to learn more about their experiences, perhaps they have worked in both of these fields and saw a trend?”.
That’s it :)
Anyway, I’ll wish you all a nice day
@james Ah, yeah, I've indeed worked in both of these fields and saw trends. Not science directly, but humanities/academia and some scientist friends. So there's where that assumption comes from.