What is Digg?91 Comments
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -15/+101Here's what's on the page, since the page seems to be really slow right now.
------------------------
Mr. Bad and Crackmonkey collaborate on a fine Mr. Bad's List. We put together ALL the TECHNOLOGY you ever need to know in order to STUMP your OPPONENT in a technical argument. Use these only when your back is against the wall -- they're definitely desperation tactics.
1. That won't scale.
2. That's been proven to be O(N^2) and we need a solution that's O(NlogN).
3. There are, of course, various export limitations on that technology.
4. The syntax is idiosyncratic.
5. Trying to build a team behind that technology would be a staffing nightmare.
6. That can't be generalized to a cross-platform build.
7. Unfortunately, the license would contaminate our product.
8. If we go with that idea, we're going to have Don Marti camped out in the front lobby with 300 angry software jihad supporters.
9. Our support infrastructure simply can't handle the volume that change would involve.
10. I had one of the interns try that approach for another project, and it scrambled the CEO's hard drive. So I think it's going to be a hard sell.
11. Yes, well, that's just not the way things work in the real world.
12. I like your idea. Why don't you write up a white paper and we'll review it at the next staff meeting?
13. Unfortunately, we're an all-FORTH shop. Otherwise, it's a nice idea.
14. I think you need to stop taking this so personally. We need to think about what's best for the project, not about our own little pet theories.
15. Oh, I played with that approach back as an undergrad. Got a D, too.
16. I was reading about that on BugTraq yesterday.
17. Yes, I believe that's the approach Windows NT is taking.
18. That's totally inefficient on modern hardware.
19. Well, yes, but it really reduces to the knapsack problem in that case. Do you have some kind of heuristic, or are we dealing with an NP-complete case?
20. Have you LOOKED at the number of I/O requests that will create?
21. We can't afford the transaction overhead.
22. Yeah, or we could all just plink away on Amigas or something.
23. What? I don't speak your crazy moon-language.
24. Hmm. Didn't they just go bankrupt? It's OK, I guess -- there's some German company who's picked up the existing service contracts.
25. No, no, no. We're really working on an N-TIER architecture, here.
26. No, no, no. It's fairly important that the database be in THIRD NORMAL FORM.
27. No, that would break object encapsulation.
28. I don't think that's altogether clear. Please write it up in UML for me.
29. I think there's a problem with your drive geometry.
30. Can you generate some USE CASES that would justify the change?
31. How is that going to impact the schedule?
32. RAM is cheap and all, but...
33. It would probably be best if we deferred that until version 2.0.
34. I like it, but it is too point-oh for my tastes.
35. If you make this change, I will fork the code.
36. Yes, well, unfortunately the economy is going away from anything remotely like that. Our investors would kill us.
37. Jakob Nielsen wrote an interesting hit piece on that.
38. Yes, yes, we've all read DJB's RFCs on the subject.
39. This is all covered in Knuth, and we don't have time to go over it again.
40. This one is in the FAQ: http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#your_dumb_technology
41. I don't have time for this extropian nonsense.
42. Well, I guess we could start the QA cycles again from square one. That would require a press release, though.
43. You used to program in Pascal, didn't you?
44. Why don't we make a generalized solution including both options, and let the administrator decide with a config-file setting?
45. You've obviously ignored the various namespace issues.
46. I don't think you're considering the performance trade-offs.
47. What kind of benchmarks have you been running?
48. Let's table this for now, and we'll talk about it one-on-one off-line.
49. This really doesn't jibe with our core competency.
50. This sort of thing should really be outsourced.
51. I remember that IBM had a project to do that back in the 70s.
52. Um, hello? We're using VON NEUMANN MACHINES HERE.
53. We need this to fit on a single floppy.
54. Yes, but can this be embedded in a toaster, for example?
55. We need something that my mom can use.
56. Users won't want to click through that many layers of hierarchy.
57. The packaging costs will be prohibitive.
58. OK, but what about internationalization?
59. Look, would you just get off your Be obsession for FIVE MINUTES and talk serious design with us?
60. That's a good idea -- you should do that on your home page.
61. Yeah, Linuxcare tried that with the Sourceror project.
62. Ho, man! Are they still AROUND? That's so cool. I thought that whole idea was discredited years ago.
63. What you're not seeing is the difference between an 'is-a' and a 'has-a' relationship.
64. There is no hope for the widow's son, Boaz.
65. Yes, but we're standardizing on XML.
66. That doesn't fit into the MVC model.
67. Well, that's great if you have an AI running the thing.
68. Well, they're going to do that with the next version of Perl, so we should probably wait.
69. Well, they're going to do that with the next version of OS X, so we should probably wait.
70. I heard that the only real application for that technology was child pornography. How did you hear about it? - RedRummy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+78dude, that just means that the majority of digg users read the article, hit the site, but don't digg.
me included... - CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51@tkstock
Sorry, but... "I'm not really into Pokemon." - 1longtime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Exactly. I think my response to most of this garbage would be #23:
"23. What? I don't speak your crazy moon-language." - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Sure and when they ask "What do you mean?" and you're forced to admit even you don't know wtf you're talking about your job will be in serious jeopardy.
- SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22What ever happened to the classic, general argument winners like '***** you, you're not even a Christian'?
- DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@otomo
Ask someone to "cite references" for explaining how an approach THEY came up with is O(N^2)? You do know what references are and what they are for, right?
I think you came up with another retarded way to "win" a technical argument -- just say "OMG SITE UR SORCES!!!!!!!LOLZ" - b3mus3d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18if anyone misses the reference-
http://xkcd.com/c178.html
excellent webcomic :) - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It skipped my favorite one -
"Its going to take us 3-4 months to refactor our existing codebase to accomodate." - Korrigan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You're not thinking fourth dimensionally.
- praveenmarkandu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12from Monkey Island: " I am rubber , you are glue!"
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16You're wrong.
- kermithefrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"thats what she said"
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This is kind of strictly for (people) managers to win arguments against other (people) managers. Any coder or network manager (worth their salt) will just look at the poor, unfortunate human who uses this list blankly, nod his head in wonder at the amazing levels of stupid, and go on to do whatever he was going to do in the first place.
- indyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Flipping beautiful post! I shall hang it on the wall of my office, next to the dartboard. Need a good reason? Toss a dart and I'll justify that position!
[ dartboard used to physically abuse non-validating, table-layout, designed-for-ie-5, completely unusable, misusing-PDF-and-every-other-file-type websites found around my campus ] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I use YOUBUNTOO. I'm 14 and my comments about Linux, however wrong and misguided should be taken seriously and be dugg up accordingly
- silverbolt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"35. If you make this change, I will fork the code."
Haha. I couldn't continue reading after that. - DannySpace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You could always stroke your chin and say "Interesting concept".
- pagit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7These will work for ANY argument in life
Try them, they work for me... - totallydismayed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"12. I like your idea. Why don't you write up a white paper and we'll review it at the next staff meeting?"
Haha. Evil. This is every developer's kryptonite. - webjoseph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's a nice-to-have, we need to focus only on must-haves.
- fogster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think you're taking this list way too seriously. I saw most of the things as humorous ways to give a junior colleague a hard time.
- carniv0re, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wonder if anybody could get fired for not getting a joke.
- thetanman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"70. I heard that the only real application for that technology was child pornography. How did you hear about it?"
Would've like to have seen him lead with this, just in case someone didn't get to it. I'd love to see the look on someone's face, especially if they were into child porno, when you ask them this. - eavonius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wow, I can think of a few times some people used these on me. They were dinosaur wannabe architects that don't understand any technology past 1985. If someone uses these on you, roll your eyes and talk to their manager after the meeting. That idiot should be let go because they are a member of the no-innovation, everything-is-pie-in-the-sky-to-me, refuse to learn, grumpy old programmer camp.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The counter to "We need to think about what's best for the project, not about our own little pet theories." is "What you call my 'pet theory', I call 'best for the project'". There's probably a better variation, but you get the idea.
- mkgm1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"So's your face" always does wonders for me.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is somewhat moronic - in technical arguments, there is often a tradeoff - sacrifice memory for speed in algorithms, power for readability in programming languages, code maintenance for development speed in software construction. These can be fairly subtle issues, and quite frankly, if you don't have the maturity or intelligence to engage in high level discussions you deserve whatever ridicule the other side dishes out at you. If you come back with one of these, you are just needlessly stomping on your own reputation.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There's a difference between arguing and *****. Unfortunately most people are idiots and fall for ***** rather than learning something and thinking for a moment. That's why politics exists, so we have a place to move all the idiots out of the general populations way.
- mavsmaniac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I tried #50 on my wife when she told me I should be more romantic...
- mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Hahah. I was gonna quote this one too!
And this one: "# I think you need to stop taking this so personally. We need to think about what's best for the project, not about our own little pet theories."
..is going to work for any argument about anything. - Kestral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."
- postoak99, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9some of you guys take things waaaayyyy too seriously,. lighten up! It was funny.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5sometimes the world is harsh to you, you'll find out
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I find examples of "ways to win an argument" that illustrate how not to have a proper argument to be annoying. A proper argument sticks to the facts. Both sides should be trying to win in the sense that they believe that their position is correct and can stand on its own in its correctness.
- baskervillain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Use Summarize on that list and you get this:
"Well, they're going to do that with the next version of OS X, so we should probably wait." - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My favorite was always "You're wrong, but at least you're enthusiastic about it. Lunch?"
- xjqcf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The article gives great comebacks for the budding PHB
- raindogmx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I had forgotten the obscure time when geeks were not cool and were called nerds. Those "arguments" are like a kick in the liver.
- aznmikex215, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Use a hash table."
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I used Summarize and got "Why don't we make a generalized solution including both options, and let the administrator decide with a config-file setting?"
- SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's all very BOFH :)
- cliffordmerkel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well... A bit arrogant, I think.
- dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1#54. Yeah! Well, your momma seems to code better than you! At least that's what she told me when she rolled over this morning!
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You're begging the question.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i never lose a technical argument
/ironic - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're a digger, there's another one: bark and chirp like a monkey.
- oonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1#2 = typical google interview topic
- danomac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Meh, just start speaking/arguing in a language the other person doesn't understand. Works every time!
- jrhelgeson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FYI: Bringing up a non sequitur as a defense in an argument, especially one that you are losing is called "sophistry".
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is