@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.
@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.