Mostly joking, the balance struck with professionals and enthusiasts was very insightful. Including anyone who is interested is very similar to only allowing experts.
I have come across issues with Google's Chrome not properly emitting events, Oracle's database mapper not properly using the visitor pattern for nested joins, and Plotly not properly supporting ranges.
While I can handle these myself, I would really like to collaborate with others in those situations.
Putting a status tag on this so I can pick it up again soon as we solidify how meta and our behind-the-scenes bug tracker coordinate, and one of the first goals is to show a better sense of presence (is it being worked on? if not, when? Is it even being tracked? Can we give users agency into how priorities get set? Etc) Anyway, more to come, but this is a great reference point for more visibility into internals. — Tim Post ♦Oct 31 '18 at 18:23
It's not unheard of for experts (John, Anna, Lubo, etc.) to ask questions. There are even sites where the questions are difficult to read. A common expression is "Not everyone has all the answers.", in some cases it's common for no one to know; see it every day.
On Chem the experts don't ask more often because they know research-level answers aren't to be found on the internet, and they're pretty okay with that
Instead they come up with synthesis golfs and stuff
@JohnDvorak +1 chuckle of the day
@TravisJ I am deeply offended on behalf of my previous self
Dangit, it's true
But where are we setting the bar anyway? 20-something folks can just be as clueless, and it becomes even more annoying, speaking of real-life examples
@user400654 This, for example, is something I can perfectly imagine the clueless midlife crisis late twenties burn-outs I've interacted with to write, @Travis.
@Mithical Oh, speaking of immature 13–18 year-olds
Anyway, I strongly disagree with painting 13-18 year olds as lacking sophisticated writing skills. I know a whole lot of people whose writing skills at that age far outstripped many people decades older.
OK. So be prepared for disappointment in a way. I like Martin's work a lot, but it doesn't even come close to the majesticness and epicness of Tolkien's use of English.
@AndrasDeak I actually know little about GoT in general. I know there are some novellas which are chapters of the books submitted for the Hugo rewards, and that there are five books and the sixth is in the making
I don't care much for the whole "I wrote a novel just so that people will read the fake language and history I wrote", yet I appreciate how it's all written
from my favourites Terry Pratchett is also brilliant although in a very different (and obviously much more modern) way
I already liked his books when I read translations, but it's just a whole new level in the original
I mean, he's being so . . . scientific about it. That is one of the best compliments I can give any piece of writing, though of course I'm a nobody
His concepts are wholesome, he doesn't hold back on presenting his ideas as exhaustively as possible, and there is a unique attention to intricate details laymen like me miss, and it makes me respect him even more when I find out about one
I call it "scientific", and perhaps, "academic", since whenever I read a historian scholar's work, I see the same themes, except this one is an account of real events and the other is fiction
It's intriguing in a much different way than a good story is intriguing
But, I guess, that doesn't make GRRM inferior to me. I just don't compare them. Maybe if I was asked to, then I'd get in the literary discectomy business, but until then, they're just interesting reads for different reasons for me
@It'sOver I didn't say inferior. Just that if you liked LoTR, because why would you not, and you liked it for the same reasons as I did, because why would you not, then ASoIaF will be disappointing if you have the same expectations ;)
Anyway, I started to read GoT in English, for some reason got stuck during second book. Something in the language just doesn't fit, so ditched it and watched on TV instead. Now reading the books will probably be weird. :/
I read the first 3 books and part of the 4th. Got fed up and stopped because all the characters I cared about were either dead, appeared to've gone evil, or had been reduced to chewtoys with no meaningful agency while the assorted villains were reveling in how awful they were.
If I wanted to read something that depressing and dystopic there're plenty of news sites on the web
@DanisFiddlingbyFirelight That's the problem when an author plans to keep extending something indefinitely (or didn't plan to and it turns out that way). That, or they devolve into long explanations, introduce characters that have no past or future, just to give a POV when they die in a catastrophe (Weber / Honor Harrington) and the book goes no where at all, but you're supposed to read the next one.
The only long-running series that occurs to me at the moment that's managed to stay interesting is Cherryh's "Foreigner"...
Certain things at the 'begining' of the series of books didn't really bother me, other than me thinking 'oh they'll be saved'.... 'oh nope, they be dead. wow.'
It reminded me of how in japanese rpg's they don't care about killing off main characters, where as western rpgs would often have a deus ex machina randomly saving people at the last second.
@CindyMeister Weber's minor character body count is because he needs deaths for dramatic tension in combat; but can't kill off main characters frequently without blowing up his own narrative worse than a fleet of Solarian League ships trying to pick a fight with Manticore.
