Man I’ve seen others try to twist those words the same way even though it’s on the same level as one of those elementary reasoning problems you’d find on a basic IQ test (Jack caught an std after interacting with koalas - a) all koalas transmit stds, b) some koalas transmit stds, c) pandas are free from stds, d) Jack should spend more than $5 on his hookers).
So unless you actually are stupid and this is why you’re choosing to (defensively) misinterpret his words by picking the equivalent of c) here, it’s clearly wilful misrepresentation of a very reasonable statement - “Of the people I admire, most don’t shy away from cutting edge sutff”
This would be true if we were reading a paper on formal logic and all people communicated exclusively through lean.
Why would he chose to include that section in this correspondence? Just as a non-sequiturs? Your analysis implies he had absolutely no rhetorical goal in including that section. Humans tend to have rhetorical goals when they write or speak so we must ask “what was Linus’ goal” in that section.
Given the context, the fact that the email thread is in regards to letting LLM’s make commit messages, and Linus being famously willing to insult the intelligence of others it would be foolish not to assume that “insult their intellect” was not a rhetorical goal.
So why did he include that part? No particular reason? Was he just making an unrelated remark about some of his friends? Accidentally included that bit but it was intended for a different email?
The simplest explanation is “similar to all the other times he’s made back handed remarks or direct statements criticizing the intellect of who he was speaking to, he was criticizing the intellect of who he was speaking to”.
This is an odd hill to die on. Linus is famously callous and rude in the Linux mailing list so to declare that this time he was just making a completely off-handed and unrelated remark about his bois is a difficult position to defend.
How do you parse the last part, if not calling people stupid for not using AI?
Man I’ve seen others try to twist those words the same way even though it’s on the same level as one of those elementary reasoning problems you’d find on a basic IQ test (Jack caught an std after interacting with koalas - a) all koalas transmit stds, b) some koalas transmit stds, c) pandas are free from stds, d) Jack should spend more than $5 on his hookers).
So unless you actually are stupid and this is why you’re choosing to (defensively) misinterpret his words by picking the equivalent of c) here, it’s clearly wilful misrepresentation of a very reasonable statement - “Of the people I admire, most don’t shy away from cutting edge sutff”
This would be true if we were reading a paper on formal logic and all people communicated exclusively through lean.
Why would he chose to include that section in this correspondence? Just as a non-sequiturs? Your analysis implies he had absolutely no rhetorical goal in including that section. Humans tend to have rhetorical goals when they write or speak so we must ask “what was Linus’ goal” in that section.
Given the context, the fact that the email thread is in regards to letting LLM’s make commit messages, and Linus being famously willing to insult the intelligence of others it would be foolish not to assume that “insult their intellect” was not a rhetorical goal.
Even considering rhetorical goals and context, without “I particularly dislike this guy”, it’s an enormous leap to twist those words that way.
Stop blaming the pandas.
So why did he include that part? No particular reason? Was he just making an unrelated remark about some of his friends? Accidentally included that bit but it was intended for a different email?
The simplest explanation is “similar to all the other times he’s made back handed remarks or direct statements criticizing the intellect of who he was speaking to, he was criticizing the intellect of who he was speaking to”.
This is an odd hill to die on. Linus is famously callous and rude in the Linux mailing list so to declare that this time he was just making a completely off-handed and unrelated remark about his bois is a difficult position to defend.