← | Results 3751 ... 4000 found in all logged channels for 'f:diana' | →
(ossasepia) diana_coman notes she is NOT A JOURNALIST
(ossasepia) diana_coman: why it was never requested/asked for is mainly because it seemed you have it well under control so yeah, no need to ask; but now I wonder - do you have a clear plan there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: for that matter, what's your editing/publishing schedule/plan anyway?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: yw; have a look and a think, put the meat on those bones and/or ask if there's something unclear, see if there's perhaps more /different to add, iterate and come back, just keep going and it will get moving.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-02-27#1019478 - that may very well be but it still doesn't do anything; you know, it's *exactly* for this sort of reason that "LOC" ended up as "measure of software", with all the idiotic results of it: because it is indeed easier to ...measure; basically measuring stuff that is easy to measure instead of stuff that is *useful* to measure - horrible approach.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: so, the good news is that those outlines ARE useful; the unexpected news is that there's way more work to be done on them before they are useful *for writing*; so far they are useful for highlighting where you need to do more work & thinking really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: could add there "and stare at the examples for 1 hour while intensely piping languages"!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: also, the "how to learn" is so, SO poor!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: e.g. "Piping lets one switch back and fourth between languages" - this is not a why and it can't possibly be a why; piping is very *powerful* but NOT because it makes you...switch languages, wtf! how do you even reason you'd link that in as a why learn it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: at least the outline is good for highlighting this - you don't really know/have/are used to extract good whys.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: you need to figure out better your "why" there for sure, heh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: how does that link-archiving work, can I have it in here too or what does it require?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: if needed, do keep in mind/plan as well so that you rely a bit more on thimbronion and nicoleci or what other contributors you already have so that you do minimum for now on the writing as such and focus on growth first and foremost.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: also, seriously now, qntra is not working in a void so you should get known too as the active voice behind qntra if nothing else; the point is that it's unseemly that all idiots get to talk unchallenged and shamelessly promote all the shit everywhere while qntra stands by like a wallflower or what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it's one thing to say "no new contributors" and it's another thing to say "no new contributors after trawling x blogs, inserting y comments, picking z fights in t months; still in the pipeline to explore gab and twitter etc"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... structure it somehow, there's no chance to either get some clarity as to what *options* there are or to hold your ground and be able to have a proper talk when asked "what did qntra do for growth", you know?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: here's a quick skeleton made for the readership growth based on the above structure; look at it and see how& where your items fit + what further space it opens up for clear exploration; structure similarly (and/or see what is different if anything at this level) for contributors growth; for both you really need to add and explore more offline options too, for sure; but unless you ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: for 2. Contributor growth, it seems to be ~same really, could work perfectly fine.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: looking at what you have there, how about this high-level structure: 1. Readership growth 1.1 strategy/approach 1.2 venues of interest (online and offline) 1.3 tools & implementation 1.4 discarded (ie already known to not-work, whatever they are but it's useful to list stuff & reasons anyway, lest one forgets or ends up otherwise with "nothing to show")
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: it's better but you seem to lack/not have yet clear a high-level structure of what exactly you are trying to figure out so that you get some clarity and can even evaluate how much/what you did/still need to do, hm.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and with lights & sounds!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: lolz, I kept refraining from telling you that you really should have gone for being a firefighter by the looks of it, but here, it has to be said!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: ok.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: what's the status on the scripts part? did you refine those steps to something more useful for the task?
(trilema) diana_coman waves a generated-sphere-on-a-bone-that-is-not-a-bone-they-are-idiots
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: re mechanic, the more important part is how good a mechanic he is, rather than how well you get along with him, lol.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: good; so version 2 should have two main headings, namely A. improving circulation B. Attracting writers , ok? And at B I'll say it plainly that I think it includes the "and growing writers", just so it's not lost on the way.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: all right; take your time - as long as it's productive ; and talk /ask at any point or stage as soon as just taking the time is not that productive, the focus is on getting to do it right, not on sticking to the previous plan even when it stops fitting or something.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: you have the aims; you have some known-to-work previous attempts; you have some known-to-fail previous attempts; there's the whole world in between; include the first, steer away from the second (and anything similar in *nature* to it); bring in *anything* and as much as you can glimpse even if unclearly from the third; does this make any sense?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: based on the above discussion and your existing outline, I'd really much rather see from you a draft that implements it all (can be a draft of the article, not necessarily of the outline again but please do make sure you either do as discussed or ask for further clarification/discussion where and what it's not making sense/fit/whatever) and gets another review rather than a published article; does this sit well with you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so that's what you set your eyes on and then you look at *everything and the devil's own kin* that might get you even in the slightest closer to that, yes?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: you have the high-level/long-term aims even clearly stated already, as it turns out, here
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: quite likely; and btw, it potentially stores further trouble if unchecked, because it makes communication with you quite unreliable on both ends ie you think you said something but you said something else and it can take a while - in the happy case!- until either you or the other party figures out the misunderstanding (if it gets figured out...)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: getting back to the trees discussion, if you aim therefore on identifying and talking of the main actors, then it's *them* that end up as main nodes in your tree and the rest flows from there; sure, context is needed of course but it will come then second, not first.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: it's fine to focus on that but then focus explicitly and purposefully ie first of all the focus should be clear *for you*, second you should be mindful of it so it really drives & shapes the content, third you should keep to it once clearly identified so the result is consistent and fully delivering on its aim instead of ending up a scattering of different bits and pieces.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you planned for the last and you should plan for the first; why are you so concerned with leaks and all that, when there isn't even a proper boat to speak of?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: myeah, it shows; listen, there's a marked difference between growth and expansion on one hand vs reducing loss on the other.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: does the above make sense to you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I suspect you are pretty much mixing there at least 3 topics and that's why it ends up pushing in different directions at each step; you have "trust in the bitcoin world" (or perhaps ~how bitcoin changed trust determinations), "timeline of bitcoin", "politics, tech and markets in the btc environment"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: hm, that would logically push a history of *main actors* in bitcoin, ie that's your focus & perspective really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: in itself the above fits together fine; how does it jump though to "and here's the history"?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so intro is finance and commerce routed in trust + basically how trust is in fact still present in bitcoin, except in a shape that is perhaps not that familiar to someone coming from fiat world
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: btw, how do you link the intro to the timeline exactly?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I could easily see *each* of those taking a few thousand words without any trouble - but I have no idea what exactly you want to cover, how deep and - even more importantly - how do you pick and choose there.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so if you want to talk techological perspective, follow the code base and all the drama there; when you look at the financial, follow the evolution of trades & exchanges + assorted drama there; if you follow the political, take the actors, their deeds and drama there.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: sure, that is nice and fine; but then take each in turn and follow it through the full timeline basically; this is why I was saying earlier that there's one timeline but three quite meaningful perspectives for its discussion
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I realise it's possibly this the disconnect earlier - you considered those three groups to stand for the 3 perspectives and while I noticed it for the 3rd, it didn't even register for the first 2, huh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the first simply read like a timeline really; if you aimed instead to make it "the technological perspective" then why is it focusing on satoshi rather than on ...well, the techological really, all of it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: hm, do you see your three categories there to correspond to the three perspectives?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: the trouble is not the fact that they overlap per se; the trouble is that you make again an enumeration of different things; hm, something is not quite fully getting over to you there and I'm not sure what/how much.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: taking only the financial perspective, it's one thing to have the initial flurry "everyone can make an exchange nao" (of which Mt.Gox is arguably simply the most prominent example but not otherwise alone or something so hm re missing stuff there) and it's another thing to have actual finance people moving in.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the timeline is one and arguably can be extracted at a reasonable granularity so it's documented well and not disputed; however, different events will certainly have different importance and will require more or less or different context depending on which of the three perspectives you are focusing on
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: basically you need on one hand the full timeline without added stuff; then, based on that, you can go ahead and look at it from technical, financial, political perspective (to the extent you can neatly separate those, which will be at least at times quite tough anyway)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: this is the sort of trouble you risk running into there as soon as you aim to qualify the events rather than simply collect and structure them at most: you'll need to know very well what words you use and why exactly, going quite beyond what the various things/people called themselves at that time.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... quite debatable if anyone worth anything would call glbse commerce, ahem
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: that is precisely the expansion/growth I was noting earlier, yes; it started as a proof of concept and the initial focus was on the software (sadly it even lasted for longer than it should have, at that, but this is aside); it took quite a while until the environment (as a whole because yes, it can't be just the software ever) was anywhere near some sort of recognisable forms or organising for commerce - and even then it's ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: possibly it's simply early power ranger and market development history, really
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: also, the early power ranger history actually looks rather thin, hm
(ossasepia) diana_coman: both are fine and good and potentially useful, but you shouldn't mix them in the same listing as if they were the same sort of distinction - because they are not.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: your 2 first headings (birth+infancy; early power rangers) are of one type (ie you identify some eras in there, fine) but the third one is of a different type (you identify basically a different area that btc extended too/started growing in)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: there is one oddity though
(ossasepia) diana_coman: links are needed, certainly; and shouldn't be problematic, no.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: yes; and moreover, to the extent that you *want* precisely to talk to an audience as wide as you can, you *want to* start from the familiar and move on to the new, not the other way around!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what you have otherwise is mostly a timeline with some headings of your own; do you mean it as a timeline or do you intend to add more to it - if yes, what? (because while dates are supposedly easy to check, comments/additions can make or break the whole thing really)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: a. you clearly mean history of Bitcoin, not generically like that b. the point in the introduction make more sense in the exact opposite order - do you see why?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lol, the sound of silence
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: do you have that outline for review today?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: how useful do you consider that draft plan to be to you as it currently stands?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-02-25#1019386 - hm, what did you start with and how did you work from there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: ok, that fills in the picture at least, I hadn't followed Qntra in that detail; the good news is that your "management" part is therefore slimmer actually - you simply have the chief-editor management rather than overall.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: sounds like a plan; & good luck!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: should be all right; for a second pass and to get a bit more used to a better workout with a text, it's worth you look afterwards at the version on perseus with the additional notes and context (it's also a different translation so all the better for noticing the differences & similarities).
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: looking at the qntra listing on mpex I realised that you are actually on a board with MP at least so re overall management you should talk to him and clarify any issues, no? Is the situation with cazalla clarified/set somehow (as the mpex listing still says he's the editor in chief, huh)?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: bvt: I would think so though I don't know; afaik there's some flag/option to have the squatter renamed if not logged in within some timeframe; the point being that you don't want squatting, not as much that you want to have a way to get back your nick when you do get online, or at least that's how I see it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: bvt: but hm, you don't have then set to change name if not logged in either? ie someone else can in principle squat your nick ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: bvt: ahh, that makes at least some sense then, ok.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so now it takes ChanServ ~1hour to set +v mode?? jeez.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: anyways, it's fine for this week for starters, but yeah, need to see it and consider it as it shouldn't keep going /get worse.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I guess you can directly tell there now just by the number of tasks in each group how the whole is skewed.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: and huh, is 4 (reviewing contributors' submissions) scary too?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: you missed 9, lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: talking of publishing and staring - any eta for your next article?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sounds good; can anyway stare at it to your heart's content *after* publishing,lol.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... prune/change any plans.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: the more reason to get out a draft faster rather than slower since there's not much to gain by ...waiting; it's through iteration you can get better at it, not through staring at it for longer; anyways, the main idea there is to take your aim and then look to identify as many directions towards it, pretty much; do understand that it's not some "promise" ie don't block anything too early, there's plenty of time to ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: ha, you admit plainly to it!! heh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: aka by "clarity" you are not looking to see concrete detailed steps for the mid and long term
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: hopefully you do realise that there's a different level of detail that is required and makes sense for each level there, right?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: eh, next you'll carefully observe that efficiency in practice is *also* (annoyingly! inadmissibly!) not 100%!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: lol, if it serves, then why not!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: is it fair to say that your planning/daily schedule actually works quite fine for you (except when/if you have in there some of the eeek-factor tasks)?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: the point of the grouping is to see which directions you are covering and to what extent; ideally you'll also notice from the exercises directions that are missing/not covered - but this would work better indeed if you had already even a draft plan re wut-do-with-qntra since that's the focus anyway
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: ah, I see; anyways, forrest mims on electronics probably but before that ...basic physics indeed.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but you can't do a meaningful grouping by a thing that is anyway first of all your characteristic rather than of those things you aim to group and second anyway poorly defined & not exactly measurable as such either.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: if you want to add the comfort level for your own measurement, add it, sure
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: no, grouping is by topic, not by your comfort level, lolz
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-02-24#1019312 - not that I'm against whaack's need to brush up on basic physics and all that but how did it come to circuits, what did I miss?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: is that comment clear to you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: beware of problems that "resolve themselves" , lolz
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lol, scaaaary!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: yeah, no need to ping, I ~always follow one way or another what I asked for and with a deadline at that.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: ok; maybe if the server setup really takes 1 full day, keep an eye as you go as to what /how to make it faster for next time at least.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: obbes: eh, balance is key, what; but this sort of "won't say it because feels guilty" is some ~15 years of age, not 30+, wtf; the situation is already there whether you say it or not, so saying something about it can only have benefits really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: btw, all the above discussion of tree-structuring might be of use to you too.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: btw, re leaf nodes, it's not necessarily that they *can't* be expanded; it simply is that the author doesn't care to expand it further for this specific outline/article, that's enough.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: to contrast perhaps - you could find "related" by the sort of "word association" in which case it could be just about anything really, but to give an example, perhaps it goes "building otc network -> my experience selling btc for weed"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: to the extent that your focus is on the building rather than the otc term, the detailing goes on to look at what building that thing is all about; and logically speaking you start with...why do it at all, no?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, if it is proper building, true.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: building something implies among others a "why", doesn't it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: if it helps, perhaps think of it as a boxes-inside-boxes structure, that's how it works, you should be able to open it up/close it to any level and it should still make FULL sense.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and that is really the deeper difference - your outline just mix-and-matches stuff; despite its pretended tree structure, it's still as flat and 2d as it can be; it's not a tree, but at most an image of a tree.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: deeper levels should detail (various aspects of) the higher levels, it's not just this sort of superficial "related" as in "oh, if I can find *something* in common then they are related"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: hm, that is given once you do it properly (because guess what, you are related to your grandparents too, not only to your parents, lolz)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: try to add/continue on that revision, at any rate.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: nothing to do with an actual consideration at all really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: that is called "I hesitated on whether to include it or not and couldn't make up my mind"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the poor adverb is just misused really; and otherwise the misuse is -unsurprisingly- not helping you at all, no.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: out of pure curiosity, just what would be "lightly considered" if the above is the heavy version?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: that is also *not* at all "heavily considered", lolz.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: so what are the reasons why you decided it better goes in this article then?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: do you see the core difference between your points and my re-write there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... easily fit as such.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: re that past experience with otc, if you want to focus on it as such, it probably makes an article on its own of the sort "lessons learnt" or "funny recollections" or whatever; but if you stick it in this one, then it's likely it can go either as concrete examples/supporting evidence to/for some points/choices you make or otherwise possibly *against* not taking other paths, not sure I see atm other places where it would ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: kind of hard to imagine though that this somehow just happened now the first time or something, huh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: so sure, it can go as example and source of inspiration but it's not a reason, no.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: re outline, basically you have a topic (building that local otc network) and then you have clear subtopics that flow naturally, the why build it, the *how* build it at the very least, possibly the previous experience to the extent that you use it to add to the discussion rather than just sticking it on the side.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: or what's your plan there anyway?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: do you have any sort of warranty or insurance for this sort of thing?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: have a look at this re-write of your first points there: http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=VotQ
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what is this, fashion or thinking?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: for example, just what/why is jwrd now all of a sudden a ...reason??
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack:well, structure is better; content, uhm; listen, "links to parent node" is one thing, but *how* it links is more important, lolz.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: yeah, all the good intentions, I know.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: did you figure out any usefulness for those weekly reviews?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: do tell me something - is the wallet work otherwise really taking up all time/mind-space or is it just that there's ~always something else found to fill the non-wallet space or what exactly?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: myeah; I guess I might need to look for a bigger hammer in the end, dunno.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: honestly, I'm really happy to hear of your progress on the wallet; there is at least that.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: how's the server setup, is it really going to eat up the whole weekend+ ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: where are you with all the pending stuff anyway?
(ossasepia) diana_coman adds to the list of things to ponder just wtf are deadlines such a difficult thing for others.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: in other words, most likely similar to last week, lolz.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: also, is the writing again stuck or falling by the wayside due to focus on the wallet or what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: what's your status/plan for the plan & review this week?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo, jfw well, there's been ~0 work on trb for quite a while and moreover nobody really owns it explicitly to start with.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and for everyone else struggling with new/never-did-before-stuff, seriously, the above ^
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: for all new stuff, the iterative learning process goes 1. make a draft 2. ask for feedback 3. implement feedback to have another version of the draft 4. repeat from 2 until feedback comes back ~it's fine.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... as opposed to "take a browser"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: from that comment, you actually have in there quite some seeds for at least one part of your qntra strategy and otherwise re steps for automation (and in general for tasks) - you need to identify what are the machine-tasks essentially ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: do write up your plan with concrete tasks you aim to do over the next week; you can choose your deadline as it suits you on this but my reading window for those is most usually Monday morning UTC
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-02-21#1019136 - glad to hear it! (and I can quite picture it too, heh)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: I see a great day of lulz!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I hope the surfpal at least rubbed it in properly since it's amply deserved.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-02-21#1019138 - lmao; should I even ask if you checked the battery at least? (if you even have what to check it with...?) ; but surely the taxi-pal sorted it all out by now, right?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: btw, you have that course and it's a good thing to have so do aim to use it; sure, if you really have contributors that don't *need* it, fine; again, it's all right to give new contributors time to get to the point where they can see they need it; but getting contributors to graduate from it (either formally or informally aka actually having that knowledge) *should be* mandatory, there's no way around this.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: redo your outline, why would you persist without that? it's no trouble if you write&publish therefore tomorrow, is it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sounds like a plan.
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman will leave it to BingoBoingo before she ends up thoroughly mad at thimbronion
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: yes, as long as the break disconnect/reconnect is not longer than a few minutes.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: logging + keeping track of logging sounds like first priority really, if it's not already in place.
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: if you take him on that course, do make sure he actually does more work on it than you because seriously, you have not just one full plate to gobble up but several.
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: you've lost the link (and no link can ever be found either, good god) ; and if it will help - someone else is supposed to tell you if it will help? gah
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: thimbronion: does that answer not strike you in any way as idiotic?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: 6 is not a question!! (not that the rest contained the slightest question mark explicitly but anyways)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: 2.3 this is where latency otherwise will keep biting you - if it takes you half a year to log what you have, ofc meanwhile there will be new chans and all that; so ideally - don't take that long! that being said, simply setup some interval where you scan for new chans and then add them to the list, aiming to gradually reduce the gap or something
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: 2.1 channel successfully logged == at least 2 weeks of *continuous* logs for it 2.2 how do you keep track of it is up to you really - it depends on your setup, no? plan it so you reliably keep track, I don't see what your question is asking exactly
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: thimbronion: do you plan then to take BingoBoingo's full course for Qntra?
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: thimbronion: from what I see, the Qntra-contributions are actually working quite well for you; is this correct?
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: let China come to you! it's cheaper!
(agriculturalsupremacy) diana_coman: ahaha, thimbronion will end up "going to China" while staying in California?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: indeed; obviously, as you go and if/when you see what to cut away as unnecessary, do it since it helps but don't end up in that trap of endlessly-polishing-the-code as if the polish is the very goal.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lol as you wish but there's plenty of such lol around, heh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: "I am running this ugly code that I fully own however" is different from "I am running this code I found and uhm, I kind of hope it does X and moreover I fervently hope it doesn't do something worse either!!"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sure, it's not ideal code, not even good looking code and all that; but that's a *different* consideration, you can't muddle things up like this.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: well, do they muddle up your understanding of what actually happens? no? then why would they lower your confidence in your own claim?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: c. (if needed, not always) have some redundancy
(ossasepia) diana_coman: for 2. if you want to have confidence in a claim, you'd usually look to a. monitor rather than trust b. triangulate information that supports whatever claim you make (this includes making sure there is what to triangulate, ofc but that supposedly comes from a)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sure, less complexity makes it *easier* to understand it and grasp it; it still doesn't do anything by itself nor is it like that a hard prerequisite for having confidence.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: for 1. confidence in your code doesn't come *directly* from little complexity; there can be as little complexity as one wishes - if you don't fully grasp what's going on, you'll still lack confidence; confidence is after all saying something about *your understanding*, not about the code.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... clearly..unclear 2. further making a jump from the original "want to have confidence in my claim"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: uhm, that sounds well intended but quite confused; let's clear it up: you want more confidence in the claims you make as a result of running some code- this part is as it should be, indeed; you consider that unecessary components/complexity in the code are certainly in the way of having confidence in that code - while true as such, this is also 1. jumping some intermediate steps in the very statement so that it's ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: well, on one hand the "meet my schedule" is not a good reason for anything (other than shooting yourself in the foot); that aside though - why do you think it might be a mistake?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sure, once and AFTER you get THAT part well, you will indeed be in a position to pick and choose further refinements essentially and you'll have the capacity to choose the style and so on; but that's way, way further up that mountain.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it is more of the sort "here I am thinking on THIS topic"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so you should have a topic, sure; and a scope, indeed; but not a goal of the moralist kind "now we shall prove this theory"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: whaack: yes! and moreover, your aim should always be to *figure things out*, not to say this or that; ie you should be searching for the truth whatever it might be (and whatever existing belief/comfort it might require shattered in the process)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: cool, sounds like the best sort of busy day really so good luck!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: ah, also, mind just using your own photo already? wtf do you need someone else's (be it even the only ~philosopher the US produced) as your profile pic?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: yw; for now see to that comment and otherwise as background/longer term, do think of a proper strategy & plan for qntra, short, medium and long-term (that's your management hat).
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: all right, then you've got it and I will hold you up to the same standard as for everyone else; I'll set you up by the end of the week anyway and I hope you'll make the most use of it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: now back to here and #o - considering all the above as well, do you want yh access?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you're welcome; you know, I meant that exactly as said, so I'm glad if I could help.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you can however ask for help with whatever you need - just ask intelligently.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: whether you like it or not, you *are* effectively qntra's manager as well as editor in chief (and apparently CTO too) and so you really need to start wearing all those hats properly, you can't just wear the one you are most used to.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: all right; do realise though that yes, you need sharping but so does Qntra if it's to serve properly and what/if it becomes depends currently quite entirely on what you *do*.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so if I understand it correctly, you do see Qntra as your main tool and focus, right?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: aha; quite a difference between venting and attacking, yeah.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so, through what means are you going to do that?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: eh, there's nothing better than proper hate to get one out of a deep hole.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: could work quite well actually so hold on to that then; (/me would add "as much as I can" but that's... me)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so I'll ask again explicitly - what is it that you actually want to do as your own?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: you know, you dug yourself out of several holes already and you brought others with you too with Qntra and moreover, you did carve your way in a different country and a foreign language and all that so there is quite clear evidence that you CAN do a lot - if you actually aim purposefully for clear doings though and don't get sidetracked/daydreaming/whatever it is that ends up eating you into passive "keep alive" mode.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: this is also why I was noting earlier that the what you like is weirdly missing from the picture almost entirely.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: and there's this rather troublesome direction of the attachment - I'd see it attaching Qntra to self rather than the other way around
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so count the long string of learning from failures rather than the fails; with both the isp and qntra though, the part that sticks out most as "must learn" is to aim for growth and for life, not for "keeping alive with an oxygen mask".
(ossasepia) diana_coman: good, keep that up for sure.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: 1. still sober or not? 2. still identity attached to Qntra or not?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: fwiw that might be what saved you anyway, regardless ofthe pizarro failure otherwise.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: and then? what would be a summary timeline of your actions within, as you see it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: how did you end up in/find tmsr (proto or whatevers) ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman managed to get mostly paid for being in academia, even as a student.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I had forgotten that socialist accomplishment in mass-scamming, indeed.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so what would you say "this hole" is/was?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: why did you leave the US anyway? (I know how it happened aka isp-need etc but that's not as much a reason as an opportunity you took - and good for you that you did, for sure)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: eh, do realise you can never leave yourself though so might as well take charge and aim quite purposefully for what you want exactly, outside be damned and all that.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I can quite imagine the boredom, certainly.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: is that where the vodka started?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: why not actually (trying to, at least) go for that pharmacy school ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: so what did you do after that library science escape from bad to worse?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: was that highschool in a small/big/medium town/village/what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sadly it's not any extreme though, there's always more space downwards, as it pretty much *has to be*.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ah, the watered down, degree shopfloor, aha; tbf the "library science" title is saying it all already, indeed.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ha; what's that new insane extreme?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: do you mean that as "highschool was less fucked" ? because it can equally well be just a matter of age really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: was that Master's in Library Science better/worse/same?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so yeah, the "there's nothing outside", ok.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: heh, philosophy is generally speaking exactly old and talking funny :D
(ossasepia) diana_coman: or "there is no outside" ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: as in "there's nothing outside" ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: what's that bubble, anyway?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I don't think the US has *ever* had any sort of reputation in Philosophy, whether Illinois or Washington makes little difference from where I see it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: but dunno, why not look further afield then? and I do mean - outside the US, what.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you know, philosophy, mathematics, economics, library and a sprinkle of practical computer science sounds even not bad at all on the face of it.
← | →
Download hourly DB snapshot | Get Source Code