this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
2702 points (97.1% liked)
Don’t You Know Who I Am?
3817 readers
1 users here now
Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.
Acceptable examples include:
- someone not realising who they’re talking to
- someone acting more important than they are
- someone not noticing a relevant username
- someone not realising the status/credentials of the person they’re talking to
Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.
Rules:
This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:
- Be civil, remember the human.
- No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
- Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
- Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
- Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
- Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
- Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.
PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here is her stackoverflow profile https://stackoverflow.com/users/2274694/lyndsey-scott
She has 37k points there, this fact alone already makes her stand out. And yes she does have a specialization. It's iOS Development.
Also it's bullshit that experts only know one or two languages.
People with these type of salaries are usually managers and don't really code that much anymore. I don't really get your point there. Also could you explain what an expert for you really is?
You are just moving the goalpost... Before you said "So yeah, "hello world" and loops it's." Claiming she was basically a beginner or hobbyist. Now you are arguing she isn't an "expert" and define expert at the absolute far right side of the bell curve. Why does it matter to you so much that she not get recognition for her work?
No, sorry, prove you are an "expert in programming". You won't read her stackoverflow page or make the effort to read and judge any of the evidence you have been sent on the matter, so I will extend no courtesy to you as far as trusting your qualifications. Prove it.
As far as I'm concerned you are a know-nothing troll trying to sound smart and put people down. Prove otherwise.
Prove you have been in this field, for even 5 minutes. Where is your stackoverflow page?
I'm just doing to you what you are doing to her. Did it get through? Is it annoying to deal with your own bullshit?
I never accused you of claiming to be an expert in 5 languages without evidence. I accused you of claiming to be an expert in programming ("...and as an expert in programming I recognize that.") Without proof. Why does she need proof for her claim and you don't for yours? Your claim seems bigger, claiming to be an expert in the whole of programming.
I flat out don't agree that knowing 5 languages is ridiculous. It is your opinion.
I haven't been coding for any years, I'm not in CS. You being a gatekeeper probably means you think I should't even be allowed to comment in this thread at all. I do have many people in my life who are in CS and discuss it with them regularly. (I hope you don't mind how vague I'm being, don't want too much identifying information)
The original claim in the post was just "can code in", and you made unnecessary disparaging comments implying she was a liar and inexperienced, just like the assholes in the screenshot, because you got your panties in a twist that anyone DARE claim a skill in something you do without your approval. It then turned into a stupid back and forth where you constantly changed how experienced you expected her to be to meet your criteria.
That kind of behavior pisses me the fuck off. Let people do and enjoy things, don't gatekeep, and don't act like you are certain of something just because of what you think is "likely" in your limited worldview.
Lmao proof positive that you are just an asshole gatekeeper. Probably sexist too, despite your claim otherwise, since you are so determined to put her down.
Also how do you not realize how asinine you sound????
"She said she can code in 5 languages! That's crazy, she probably isn't a master in all 5 of those languages possibly! That means she is a liar! I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT!"
I also know devs who make that kind of money, but they are the exception not the norm.
I have already watched that video and 10k hours is not that much. That's just 5h a day for 5.5 years. I also can immediately recognize undefined behavior in C++, and I have at most 2 years of experience. Let me tell you for someone who has been programming for more than a decade, all the languages are the same. It's not hard to become an expert in a different langauge once you have the basics down.
The 10k hours claim (popularized by Gladwell) is also an absurd overreach on what the research actually was or claimed to be. Read Peak by K Anders Ericsson instead of Gladwell's outliers and you get a very different presentation of what the research says from one of the researchers.
They were studying a very specific type of rote learning with a specific type of training (because being classically trained in violin is that standardized). The number of hours trained to reach expert status was not identical between practitioners. He made absolutely zero claims about the amount of time needed to learn different skills that fit the same pattern, and more importantly, really didn't make such claims about entirely different and unrelated types of learning like code that aren't formalized.
Gladwell's book was straight anecdote with no rigor.
Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't question the 10k hours at all.
Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what's actually there. I don't think it's malicious, and I don't hate him as a writer, but he's much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they're not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you're going to get in trouble.
The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it's flashy) and be an expert isn't. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you're constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.
I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They're not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they're still pretty accessible and don't assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there's still anecdotes).
Well now put in 10h a day and you are an expert in half the time. Now also consider that languages are quite similar to each other and you could become an expert in less than 10k hours. So she being an expert in more than 2 languages doesn't sound so unreasonable anymore, right?
Can I ask you what your background is in programming/computer science?
Fyi DMs on lemmy don't have the best privacy. Don't think of them as private.
But you sure like to make the big claims despite your convenient issue with providing anything to back them up. Maybe don't act like a rude gatekeeping "expert" if you aren't even willing to provide credentials.
You still don't actually have proof she doesn't know java and C++ but you don't care, apparently as long as you say it enough that is good enough for you.
I've had to use at least 5 different languages at work. Its not uncommon when you have a large, diverse, OLD codebase. We had scripts in Perl and python, my area of expertise was in Java, and most of the codebase was in C and C++.
But when people showed you she has been programming since she was 12 and absolutely has had the time to put in, you just don't believe it.
You haven't proven shit. Just because those two aren't on her stackoverflow doesn't mean she doesn't know them. You really have no concept of how evidence and proof work.
No, you claimed that, over and over and over, with no evidence. You linked a video about how people generally become masters at things, argued she (probably) hasn't put in that amount of time (despite evidence to the contrary), then you made some equally unsubstantiated claims about the exact amount of years it supposedly takes to learn java and c++, and again argued (despite evidence to the contrary) that she hasn't had to time to learn those either.
I'm only still here because you are being a gatekeeping asshole, and because of your constant abuses of the word "proof". Just because they aren't on her stackoverflow doesn't mean she doesn't know them. You think it is impossible for her to know 5 programming languages (and constantly redefine "know" in that context) and have claimed so without proof.
You are wasting your own time by "chatting" on lemmy, don't try to put that shit on me.