Most of your post discusses communication in general terms. When you say that it’s unprofessional and rude to begin a Slack message with a greeting before getting to the meat of the issue, there’s no indication at all that you only meant this to apply to Slack messages sent to you personally.
At one point you say, “Nobody reads ‘hope you had a great weekend’ and thinks better of the person who wrote it.” Who is going to read that and think that “nobody” only applies to you?
If you really meant this to describe how you want to receive communication, not how everyone should, well, this is an example of catastrophically bad communication. Maybe you’d benefit from some of the mindset that leads people to write and appreciate useless greetings.
> At one point you say, “Nobody reads ‘hope you had a great weekend’ and thinks better of the person who wrote it.” Who is going to read that and think that “nobody” only applies to you?
I argued why I believe this does not a good way of communication in business or professional-focused environment, because as explained, habitual padding tends to train readers to skim, because they learn that the lines often contain little of substance. For people who value directness (which, in my experience, includes many in serious professional settings) this kind of attitude is not appreciated. That said, it is simply my own rationale for preferring a more direct style of communication.
>Maybe you’d benefit from some of the mindset that leads people to write and appreciate useless greetings.
I come from a culture where elaborate politeness and social niceties are not only common but often expected, and I do practice them in the appropriate contexts. However, when the goal is to build something, solve a problem, or exchange ideas efficiently, I prefer a norm I explained, that is, directness and the substance of the message to take over.
As you said yourself, this is very culture dependent.
In my culture, elaborate politeness is NOT expected, and when I first started working with foreigners I had some funnily awkward (awkwardly funny) social interactions where they greeted me with customary "How are you? How was your day" and I started politely but awkwardly going over my day thinking "this is not your damn business".
My point being, if you work in a culture that expects some behaviour, it is necessary to follow it. Breaking the protocol (even by omission) is a signal in itself, and if the signal is understood as "I don't like you" or "I am rude" or "I am better than you" then it's counterproductive. Especially important if you're not close with the person communicating with, so misunderstandings are likely.
Anna's Archive or any piracy of book does not replace Google Books search functions at all. The search functions of these website just looks inside the PDF text, Google Books helped me many time to find manuscripts or old books that were not OCR'd properly. It's really a big loss.
In war, a person is civilian unless positively identified as a combatant. “Unidentified” does not mean militant. that’s true in international law, conflict research, and even the IDF’s own internal counting. The “17% identified by name” point actually supports the claim. Israel’s own intelligence database--which Israeli sources call the only authoritative militant tally--shows ~8,900 confirmed or probable militants killed out of ~53,000 total deaths at the time.
The “RPGs in their hands” is a strawman. The database does not count assumptions; it requires intelligence-linked identification. Israeli investigations and internal testimony show civilians were routinely misclassified as “terrorists” in field reports to inflate ratios
The Ukraine comparison is simply wrong. Ukraine has uniforms, unit records, POW lists, and mutual identification. Gaza is a besieged civilian population where Israel itself admits it cannot identify most victims. No serious dataset suggests 99.9% of Ukraine’s dead are civilians.
moreover, many independent investigations suggest the same. Airwars’ civilian harm analysis documented unprecedented civilian casualty patterns (large family deaths, high women/child counts), far exceeding norms seen in other 21st-century conflicts https://gaza-patterns-harm.airwars.org
Even conflict data experts (e.g., Uppsala Conflict Data Program) note that the proportion of civilians in this conflict is far higher than typical war patterns and comparable only to extreme cases like Rwanda and Mariupol https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/classified-israeli-mili...
He is right, the logical leap would be hilarious if not a symbol for today's journalistic standards.
Let's say the IDF has positively confirmed 17% combatants. The negation of that set is not "Non combatants" but "Not positively identified by the IDF as combatants". which means that some may still be combatants, and most probably some are as the standard here is to confirm names, something hard to do when someone is under the rubble. Therefore the title here which says 83% civilians according to IDF data is simply false.
That's forgetting the other issues with this article (single IDF unit not tasked with research, multiple databases with different numbers, using Hams death data, forgetting about non-Hamas non-PIJ groups, low reputable source, etc) but I am sure that if you can see this misstep you can understand the general value of what you read there
I'm not sure if you understand how casualty classification works. “not positively identified as combatant” is not logically equivalent to “proven civilian.” No one claims it is. What it does mean is that the IDF has no evidence those people were combatants. And in law, statistics, and every serious conflict dataset, you don’t get to assign lethal status based on vibes.
Also calling Aman “a single unit not tasked with research” is false. It’s Military Intelligence, and Israeli sources say this database is the only one they can stand behind.
If your position requires assuming thousands of unidentified dead people were combatants without evidence, then your position is not analytical rather ideological.
so, your position that 10 unidentified, people each with rpg that they were observed to used, without military uniform, blown up count as 10 civilians ?
No and this is misleading. First, that’s not how civilian status is determined. Civilian vs. combatant is not decided by uniforms or post-strike assumptions but on direct participation in hostilities at the time and positive identification. Someone actively firing an RPG is a combatant at that moment but that does not justify retroactively classifying every unidentified body as militant. I'm honestly surprised that I've to explain that.
Second, the example is a hypothetical case to erase the real issue. The claim about ~80% civilian deaths is not based on “assuming everyone is civilian,” but on subtracting those Israel itself could identify as militants using intelligence-linked, name-based records. Israel’s own database explicitly excludes people it merely suspects or assumes were fighters.
Third, this logic fails at scale. Gaza’s death toll includes tens of thousands of women, children, elderly, and entire families killed in homes, shelters, hospitals, and aid lines, not people observed using RPGs. Field reports and Israeli investigations show many victims were later posthumously labeled militants without evidence, inflating numbers.
Forth, the argument flips the burden of proof. You don’t get to call people militants because you can’t identify them. If that standard were accepted, any mass-casualty air war could declare most of its victims “terrorists” by default, which is exactly why serious militaries and conflict datasets reject that logic.
this picture does show differently in Chrome and Safari, but if I analyze it using the methods you did I arrive at a different result - I don't see an iHDR chunk there, instead I see a gAMA chunk and if I remove it with pngcrush it shows normally in Chrome.
You can try. I'm on Safari Version 18.6 (20621.3.11.11.3) [Seqouia 15.6.1] on my Mac, unsure of the version in my iPhone and iPad, but all of them ignore the ICC profile.
Again, my suspicion is that you are actually seeing the ICC profile being applied correctly, and it is the pixel values in your image that are incorrect.
A good test would be to run a single 100% sRGB red pixel through your image processing pipeline, and then inspecting the resulting PNG file in a hex editor to see what value is encoded.
Interesting: for me, the image quadrants display correctly in Safari, but there is a horizontal white line between the top and bottom left quadrants. You're not seeing that?
I see the white line on mobile, but not on desktop, though my OS versions are wildly different too, so hard to narrow down exactly what it might be there.
Apple essentially invented color matching on personal computers back in the classic Mac OS days; it's hard to believe after all this time, they're not dealing with color correctly.
The WebKit blog from 2016:
WebKit color-matches all images on both iOS and macOS. This means that if the image has a color profile, we will make sure the colors in the image are accurately represented on the display, whether it is normal or wide gamut. This is useful since many digital cameras don’t use sRGB in their raw format, so simply interpreting the red, green and blue values as such is unlikely to produce the correct color. Typically, you won’t have to do anything to get this color-matching. Nearly all image processing software allows you to tag an image with a color profile, and many do it by default.
> but to claim we have "lost the plot" while holding up names like "awk" is contradictory at best
My argument is that even a name like awk is much more relevant to the people who used this software back then, of course it was not the best way to name it, but at least it held some meaning to it. Unlike modern software, awk and others were not written with the consideration of a wide user-base in mind. Regarding whether we "lost the plot" or not, I believe that we did, because as mentioned, in the 80s there was a current of people who named software conventionally, and up to the 2010s, the names still used to hold some rational even when word-played or combined with cutey names.
> It sounds more like this person just had a personal vendetta against cute sounding names, not against the names being uselessly non-descriptive.
Not at all, I find it quite fun, just unprofessional.
--
Sent by replying to an automated RSS email, via msmtp (light SMTP client, which is unlike firefox, not a consumer product and its name has to do with its function).
> My argument is that even a name like awk is much more relevant to the people who used this software back then, of course it was not the best way to name it, but at least it held some meaning to it. Unlike modern software, awk and others were not written with the consideration of a wide user-base in mind. Regarding whether we "lost the plot" or not, I believe that we did, because as mentioned, in the 80s there was a current of people who named software conventionally, and up to the 2010s, the names still used to hold some rational even when word-played or combined with cutey names.
I don't personally get it. I can see the argument for names that are descriptive, because a descriptive name might be useful. Meanwhile though, a name like awk is only useful if you already happen to know what it stands for, which to me seems a little silly. Relevant? Maybe... But to what end?
> Not at all, I find it quite fun, just unprofessional.
Why do you consider it "unprofessional"? This seems like a cultural thing. For example, in Japan, it seems like it is not unusual to see cute illustrations in otherwise professional contexts. I am not sure there is a standard for professionalism that is actually universal.
Disregarding that, okay, fine: let's say that naming software after irrelevant things is unprofessional. Why should we care?
Software developers have spent at least the past couple decades bucking trends. We went to work at white collar offices wearing khakis and t-shirts, with laptops decked out in stickers. Now I'm not saying this is all software developers, but it is certainly enough that it is a considerably recognizable part of the culture.
Professionalism, in my eyes, is descriptive, not prescriptive. If professional software engineers normally name things with cute nonsense names, then that is professional for our industry.
I can see the usefulness in descriptive names because they serve a purpose, but names that are merely somehow relevant but otherwise don't tell you anything useful seem just as useless as non-sense names, and justifying the distinction with "professionalism" feels odd.
> Sent by replying to an automated RSS email, via msmtp (light SMTP client, which is unlike firefox, not a consumer product and its name has to do with its function).
Note how this also neatly works as a strong argument against descriptive names. RSS? msmtp? We're now drowning in acronyms and initialisms. I don't particularly have anything against these names (I mean, I use msmtp and the name certainly doesn't bother me) but the utility of the name RSS is quite limited and the vast majority of people probably don't really know what it stands for (to my memory it is Really Simple Syndication, but it may as well be just about anything else, since that doesn't help me understand what it is truly useful for.)
But you do hit on an interesting point that probably helps explain to some degree what's going on here: even for small CLI utilities, more often than not programmers doing open source are actually bothering to work on the marketing and deployment of their software. When I was younger a lot of open source was still more decentralized, with many programmers just dropping tarballs periodically and Linux distros (and others) taking care of delivering the software to users in a usable form. Part of trying to deliver a holistic product is having a memorable name.
msmtp may not be developed as a product, but in practice, almost all software is like a product. Someone is a "consumer" of it. (Even if that person is also a producer of it.) People get "sold" on it. (Even if it's free.) How it's marketed definitely depends on the sensibilities of the developers and the target audience but I'd argue almost all software is "marketed" in some form even if it is non-commercial and not packaged like a product. (Even something like GNU's landing pages for things like Coreutils is arguably a very, very light bit of marketing)
The actual truth is software programs that have more care put into marketing are arguably more professional. The professionalism of having a "relevant" name is rather superficial in my eyes, but having concise "marketing" that "sells" your software well to its intended audience and provides good resources for users is professionalism that makes a difference. Likewise, plenty of things delivered more like products do have relevant names! For example, KeePass and SyncThing come to mind immediately.
So whether the next great email server suite is "SMTPMailSuite" or "Stalwart" is mostly immaterial, but I'm not surprised when marketing-concious developers choose memorable names. (Obviously in case of Stalwart, there's a company behind it, so having good marketing is absolutely in their best interest.)
Another downside of a descriptive name is that software evolves over time and a name that is too descriptive could stop being relevant eventually. Off the top of my head it's hard to think of a specific example, but you can see software that evolves this way all the time. (One example on the Linux desktop is how KWin went from being an X11 Window manager to a full-blown display server compositor during the Wayland transition; but that name obviously still works just fine.)
Sonic hedgehog is a terrible example this case. Researchers literally had to tell parents their children had mutations in the "sonic hedgehog gene." The scientific community recognized this was a problem and it's a widely-known controversy. It's cited as an example of bad naming in medical ethics discussions.
Boaty McBoatface? officials overrode the vote to name it after David Attenborough. The actual research submarine got the joke name. Again, this proves my point.
Fat Gary was an internal chip designation that never needed to be public-facing. Perfectly fine.
"Names are only for distinct identification" if efficiency was not at a question. Why use worse identifiers when better ones cost the same?
I thought that would be too obvious to state.
reply