I think this site should add a name field. I like keeping track of my posts. Also feels like I'm talking to humans.
We already have two "anons" who are only here to constantly link their github and their blog. We need fewer of these social media snowflakes who are desperate to have an identity on an anonymous board, not more.
>>2
Hmm I get your point but that is inevitable. I'm okay with full anonymity but recognizing people from their usernames gives credibility to what they're saying.
I used to dislike people who used names on anon sites too but when I started getting into sites that use geoloc to identify users, it became more human for me. I could identify users and form connection.
I know most people here won't agree with this and yeah people would be able to deanonymize you by tracking every piece of info you share about yourself.
>>2
After so long using anonymous forums, I've decided it's unreasonable to share most work without some consistent identity. This format is usually fine for discussions, but larger work is rarely ever mentioned anonymously, and why would it be mentioned without an identity? It's almost entirely unreasonable to collaborate on something large with no identities whatsoever. The closest example of which I can currently think is Bitcoin, which was pseudonymous. Even a discussion isn't impervious to the call of accomplishments to reinforce an opinion, and what better way to do this than by linking to work? Explain to me how an anonymous forum about programming can reasonably discuss programming beyond small fragments without some participants eventually becoming recognizable.
At least I host everything myself, rather than use Github.
At least I host everything myself
On VPS?
I know most people here won't agree
Most people since 300 BC won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
>>1
Mona has a name field.
https://bbs.jp.net/mona
You can get its source code from SchemeBBS' "mona" branch.
but recognizing people from their usernames gives credibility to what they're saying >>3
the call of accomplishments to reinforce an opinion >>4
This is precisely the kind of fallacy to avoid. In addition to >>6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[22] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[23][24] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[25] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[26][27][24] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[23][28] Even textbooks[23] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[28] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[29] This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".[29] Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",[28] and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified[30] or discarded[31] their data to agree with Painter's count.
Mona has a name field. >>7
https://textboard.org/prog/34#t34p105
Explain to me how an anonymous forum about programming can reasonably discuss programming beyond small fragments without some participants eventually becoming recognizable. >>4
I'm sure you can reasonably expect this technique to go over unchallenged on 4kids, but in this venue your attempt to switch from "who are only here to constantly link their github and their blog [...] desperate to have an identity on an anonymous board" to "some participants eventually becoming recognizable" simply communicates to us that you do not have an answer to the former and wish instead to deflect and slide to the latter.
simply communicates to us that you do not have an answer to the former and wish instead to deflect and slide to the latter.
Alright, so there's no explanation then. Don't accuse me of not answering something while not answering in-turn.
in-turn >>9
So your best remaining attempt at defending "social media snowflakes who are desperate to have an identity on an anonymous board" is to try to pretend that there is any sort of equivalence to be drawn between not taking your deflect-slide-bait of "some participants eventually becoming recognizable" and not answering the content of the original post. Perhaps it's time for you to try for a reset. The standard move of your kind is to try for a reset in this sort of situation where your ad verecundiam fallacy has been exposed and you backed yourself into a corner by offering something as transparently absurd as a false equivalence as your only comeback. Trying for a reset is a nice way to implicitly concede that your current situation has become untenable, but without having the backbone to actually admit as much.
"some participants eventually becoming recognizable"
In a programming discussions, they almost necessarily become recognizable.
not answering the content of the original post.
What was the content of the original post?
Perhaps it's time for you to try for a reset.
No.
No.
This, my friend, is how to try for a reset: "What was the content of the original post?" After that you go on and pretend that everything up to this point didn't happen, reargue the isuue from a fresh start as "your current situation has become untenable", and relentlessly continue to push "something as transparently absurd as a false equivalence".