Guidelines for commenting in a field not your own

Quite a lot in online discussions I see otherwise highly intelligent people demonstrate a seemingly utter lack of ability to hold a civil argument.  I have been guilty of this myself.  So I thought about it for a while and came up with some guidelines for a civil discourse.

1. Don’t be arrogant.  Keep firmly in mind that maybe, just possibly, there’s a teensy-weensy chance that you aren’t the smartest person in the room.  This is especially so if you are an expert in one field commenting on an area that is not your field.  People with PhDs seem to have a particular problem with this.  Being an arrogant know-it-all will shut down the conversation and get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

2. Don’t shoot from the lip.  Keep firmly in mind that someone somewhere at some time for some reason thought the idea you’re commenting on was a good one.  If you start the discussion with words to the effect “That idea is insane and you’re stupid,” then that shuts down the conversation before it starts.  Approaching the subject with a little humility will yield far better results.  
First, instead of going on the attack, start by asking a question: “What leads you to believe this is a good idea?”  
Or lead an explanation.  “This idea doesn’t make sense to me, please explain it in more detail.”  
Or just ask questions, in a non-insulting manner, that make the people you’re disagreeing with justify their position.  
Instead of going on the attack turn the comment on yourself.  Instead of “you’re wrong” start with “I disagree”.  Then construct your argument accordingly.
You could construct your argument along these lines:
“As a [$CREDENTIAL] I think your idea is mistaken because [$FACTS], [$REASONING], [$CONCLUSIONS].  
Making a well reasoned argument will get you listened to.  Starting with insulting both ideas and people will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

3. If you are commenting outside your field, and you think your field may add perspective to the conversation then say so.  Keep firmly in mind, however, that you are commenting outside your field.  When in doubt, see Guideline 1.  

4. Get the facts of the subject you’re commenting on before you comment.  Keep in mind that people in whatever forum you’re using may have facts you don’t, especially if they’ve been involved for a long time in a project that you’ve just stumbled across.  Get the facts before you comment, especially if you think an idea is a bad one.  If there are publicly available documents then get them, read them, and make sure you understand them before constructing your argument.  Spouting off before you have the facts, or refusing to learn them, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

5. Learn the language of the field in which you are commenting, especially if it is not your own, even if it is closely related to your own.  Every field has its own language.  Never assume the language is the same as your own field.   Even closely related fields may have significant differences in their nomenclature, terminology, concepts, and sources.  Learn them before you try to impose your will on a forum that is not in your field.  Failure to learn the language, and a refusal to do so, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

6. Learn something about the widely respected sources in the field in which you are commenting, especially if it is not your own field.  Most especially if you disagree with those sources.  Preferably before you insult them.  If you come out of the gate by insulting people’s mentors then the only thing you’re going to get is pushback, and dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

7. Keep in mind that unlettered people aren’t stupid.  An unlettered autodidact who spends a lot of time studying a subject of interest may, in fact, have knowledge that you don’t.  Insulting those people, their sources, their reasoning, their opinions, and their intelligence is not a good way to win friends or influence people, and will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

8. When you’re an expert in one field who dabbles in another field as a hobby, and you find yourself in an argument with people who are credentialed working professionals in that field, then your best course of action is to listen to them before you disagree with them.  You, as a hobbyist, trying to dictate policy to working professionals in the field will not go over well.  As a hobbyist in a discussion with working professionals in a field, trying to explain their jobs to them, and refusing to listen to them, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

In conclusion, I think you get the idea by now.  Keeping a discussion civil is much more likely to get you listened to.  Even if you at first disagree strongly with an idea, make sure you wrap your mind around it fully before diving headfirst into disagreement.  Make sure you understand the facts, language, reasoning, and sources behind the idea before you vociferously disagree with it.  Just don’t be an arrogant crank and you won’t get dismissed as an arrogant crank. 

Is Astra pulling a scam, or is Kerrisdale Capital?

 Or is Kerrisdale Capital just too stupid to understand space startups?  Or is Kerrisdale Capital a short seller trying to drive the stock price down through the power of bullshit so they can make money from it? 

Let's get this straight: Investing in space launch startups is gambling.  There's an old joke about this: "How do you make a small fortune in the aerospace industry?  You start with a large one."  It's gambling.  If you don't know that investing in space launch startups is gambling then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space startups. 

Kerrisdale Capital claims that Astra mis-stated their post merger cash on hand, and rather than having enough cash to run through 2025 they only have enough to run through 2023.  Big deal.  Is it an intentional violation of securities law, or did someone just underestimate their burn rate?  Or is Kerrisdale inflating their burn rate?  Again: It's gambling, and if you don't know it's gambling then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space launch startups.  

Kerrisdale claims that "the seemingly mundane issue of finding somewhere to launch is a risk to Astra's long-term vision because contrary to management's oft repeated claim -- Astra can't launch from anywhere."  This is nonsense.  Astra already has a place to launch: Kodiak Island Spaceport.  Astra designed their launch infrastructure to be portable, and it all fits into, IIRC, 6 shipping containers.  They fly the whole mess to Kodiak for their test launches.  They could launch from Kwajalien Island for equatorial launches.  They are negotiating a lease at Wallops Island.  They're negotiating a lease at Cape Canaveral.  Heck, they could launch from a good size parking lot if they could get the permissions.  Any problems they might have in finding places to launch aren't physical, but legal.  If Kerrisdale can't figure this out then maybe they shouldn't be investing in space startups.  

This is one of the problems with the financialization of tech startups in general, and space startups in particular: Bean counters demand guaranteed returns, and space startups often run into technical issues that prevent them from delivering those guaranteed returns.  If you can't figure this out then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space startups. It's gambling, pure and simple. 

Disclaimer: I have a position in Astra Space.  I am not a professional investment adviser, and if you need one then you should hire one.  I am not an expert in spaceflight, I'm just a guy with an opinion and a big mouth. 

Update: Unfortunately, this did not age well.  Astra is going bankrupt because of criminal mismanagement.  They've failed to get payloads to orbit enough that all of their potential customers bailed out.  Now they're going into the business of building parts for other businesses.  Criminal mismanagement.  

Conservatives on the Covid vaccine

 

Conservatives: "Pharmaceuticals in America are too expensive and take too long to bring to market because there is too much regulation and too much bureaucracy in getting them approved. We should slash the regulations and red tape to bring down drug prices." 

 

Also Conservatives: "You shouldn't take the Covid vaccines because they are experimental, they don't have full approval, we don't know how effective they are, and we don't know anything about long term aftereffects."

 

<facepalm>

Why Don't You Move There, Part Duh

Whenever I mention that I like the way some other part of the country or part of the world does something, when I think they do it markedly better than we do here in Florida, USA, there's always some mook who pops up with the question "Why don't you move there".  It happens so often, with the same set of answers, that I'm tired of relitigating it every time it crops up.  Here is a list of answers, and you can pick the ones that apply. 

1. It's too far away from my family.

2. It's too far away from my friends and social network. 

3. There isn't any work for me there with my skill set.  

 4. (conditional) It's too expensive. 

5. (conditional) I don't like the weather. 

6. Fleeing is the easy way out.   Working to improve your home is the much more challenging, and much more rewarding path.  

Governor DeSantis did not have a majority.

 One of the current Republican claims is that Governor DeSantis won the 2018 gubernatorial election with, depending on who is telling the tale, 270,000 votes, or 320,000 votes.  They're wrong.  Governor DeSantis didn't even have a majority, let alone a large majority.  

The expressly nonpartisan site, Ballotpedia, tells the actual story:

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2018

The TLDR is that DeSantis didn't have a majority at all.  He won with 49.6% of the vote, so he had the largest plurality, but not a majority.  Taken as the difference between DeSantis' plurality, and the next largest, Democrat Andrew Gillum, DeSantis won by 32,463 votes.  In fact, the difference was so small that the third largest plurality, that of Reform Party candidate Darcy Richardson, was larger than the difference, at 47,140 votes.  

Any way you slice it, DeSantis' election win was a squeaker, not a landslide.  If Florida had a sane electoral system then we would have had a runoff election between DeSantis and Gillum, and voters would have had another crack at them without the alternate parties.  If we had used ranked choice voting then the outcome might have been different.  

Finally, I'll repeat my observation from the 2018 campaign: If these two mooks are the best our political parties can come up with then we're in real trouble.  

 

ACLU is wrong on 3
Alan Petrillo·Monday, October 5, 2020·Reading time: 4 minutes
4 Reads
The ACLU of Florida opposes Amendment 3, and their reasons are nonsense.
Amendment 3 proposes to enact an open primary/top 2 runoff election system in Florida. ACLU opposes it for a number of reasons, all of which are nonsense. Let’s take their reasons one at a time.


"Ballot initiative #3, misleadingly titled, “All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor and Cabinet,”... "
 
Nonsense. The title is exactly correct. All voters would get to vote in the primary, unlike the current system in which voters can only vote in primary elections for the party to which they are registered. The current system disenfranchises 3.7 Million Floridians who are registered without a party. In addition to this, 40% of new voter registrations in Florida do not have a party indicated. In the proposed reform, all voters would get to vote in the primary election regardless of party affiliation.
 
"...would have a negative impact on voters of color and effectively silence their voices."
 
I don’t see how. Voters of color would still make up the same fraction of the electorate in the same districts. In fact, California, in which this voting system has been used in the past 3 election cycles, has seen an increase minority candidates elected to office. 
 
"...In addition, it would create a "top-two" electoral system that could prevent voters in the general election from voting for members of their own party in state legislative, governor and cabinet races."
 
Sure, this is possible. It’s rare, but it’s possible. In practice what it means is that both major parties would have to nominate candidates who appeal to a broader base of voters in their districts. Which is the whole idea. 
 
"While supporters of Ballot Initiative #3 claim that this would allow more voters to participate in our democratic process, this amendment would have a negative impact on Black communities by diluting their vote in primary elections."
 
ACLU makes this claim in several places, but they have not backed it up with logic. I don’t buy it, but I’m willing to listen to their logic with an open mind. In our current gerrymandered system, black voters have been packed and cracked, and the makeup of the districts would not change, only the way people can vote. The apportionment of the districts has far more to do with the effects on Black communities than open primaries ever would. 
 
"The measure also raises First Amendment concerns by hindering political dissent..."
 
How? By allowing more people to vote in the primary? I don’t buy it. But, again, I’m willing to listen to ACLU’s logic if they choose to present any. 
 
"...and a political party's freedom of association,..."
 
How? Again, this makes no sense. The amendment says nothing about who can associate with a political party or who may not. In fact, the amendment should increase the association between parties and voters. Again, I’m willing to listen to ACLU’s logic if they present any.
 
"...as well as the ability to select its candidates..."
 
Nonsense. The amendment says nothing about how political parties may select their candidates. In practice, currently the political parties have little say over how candidates get on the ballot. All politicians have to do is declare their party affiliation when they register for the ballot. The parties may support them, endorse them, or not at their discretion.
 
...and messaging."
 
This one is true. The parties will have to broaden their message to appeal to a wider section of the electorate instead of just their base. That’s the whole idea. Closed primaries brought us to the point that the extremists of the major parties have taken over, and resulted in the situation we find ourselves in, in which the two major parties might as well exist in different universes. As it is now, if an office holder chooses to reach across the aisle and negotiate with officials on the other side then that person will face a primary challenge in the next election from a more extremist candidate. This is the situation which has brought us to 21 years of single party rule.
 
 
3William Bishop, Jon Singer and 1 other
10 Comments
Like
CommentShareSave
Comments
• 

  William Bishop I love reading your opinion.
  My question...
  
  Since only the top two move forward to the General.....isn’t it possible to have two candidates from the same party?
• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo William Bishop : It is possible but it is rare. It has happened in a couple of races in California. The answer is that all the parties need to nominate candidates who appeal to a broader range of the electorate in their districts as a whole, not just their party base. Which is entirely the point. If we can start getting politicians to agree on consensus goals and only disagree on the details then that can't be a bad thing.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo you may have just changed my mind.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo William Bishop : I would prefer ranked choice voting, but 3 is the next best thing, and easier to administrate.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo I must admit, I also question ACLU's goals. Among other things, 3 would tend to reduce the ability of ACLU and groups like them to influence elections, which they no doubt see as an existential threat.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo
  I don’t see anything wrong with that. Everyone needs to vote (and persuade others to vote) in a direction that benefits themselves.
  
  That’s called reality.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  Alan Petrillo ACLU still has not responded to my contact requesting they justify their opinion statements.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 6d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo
  😂😂😂
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Alan Petrillo William Bishop : I have closer contact with the representatives from the Tampa Bay chapter of ACLU. I'll poke them on it.

  1
• • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 4d
• 

  William Bishop Alan Petrillo
  Very cool.
  I’m interested in how it turns out!

31 Consensus Goals

 

·Thursday, October 1, 2020· 

Reading time: 2 minutes

 

Physicist, SF writer, and all around smart guy, Dr. David Brin identified a list of 31 consensus goals which Democrats, the far left, centrists, and even some moderate Republicans can agree to. Keep in mind, we can’t accomplish any of them unless we win an election. Think about that before you cast a vote for a spoiler.

 

Electoral reform: end gerrymandering, rigged voting machines, voter suppression and other cheats,

 

Election money transparency and steps toward reducing the political dominance of cash,

 

Restore our alliances and fair trade,

 

Deter acts of war (cyber/electoral/trade etc.) against our nation/institutions,

 

End "supply side" vampirism by the aristocracy we rebelled against in 1776,

 

Infrastructure, paid for by ending supply side voodoo,

 

DACA,

 

Children out of cages, refugees given safe places to live and process,

 

Whistleblower protections and rewards for those revealing corruption and blackmail; plus a ten year limit 

on non-disclosure agreements,

 

Attack international banking secrecy, shell company games, hidden ownership, money laundering,

 

A Marshall Plan for Central America. Hold their corrupt elites accountable,

 

Medicare for all children (a start, so popular the GOP can’t dare refuse),

 

Climate action – vigorous first steps,

 

Restore science, R&D and technological leadership as national strengths,

 

Protect women’s autonomy, credibility and command over their own bodies,

 

Consumer protection, empower the Consumer Financial Protection Board.

 

At least allow student debt refinancing. Analyze and start doing much more.

 

Restore the postal savings bank for the un-banked,

 

Basic, efficient, universal background checks,

 

Basic-level Net Neutrality for consumers,

 

A revised-throttled War Powers Act and limit presidential emergency powers,

 

Civil Service protection,

 

Reject racism, gender-phobia, Nazism etc. as evils while calming all sanctimonies,

 

Restore respect for things called facts. Support professions that use them,

 

Restore rebuttal rules on “news” channels,

 

Emoluments supervision. Audit the cheating, money-laundering oligarchy,

 

Ease out of the damned drug war (at least don’t impede states),

 

Anti-trust breakup of monopoly/duopolies,

 

Allow pharma renegotiation and stop the tricks that stymie generics,

 

Restore some of the social contract set up by the FDR-loving "Greatest Generation" (GG).

 

…and finally number thirty-one… 

 

Win. Rip every branch and tool of power away from what has mutated into an international cabal of gangsters, carbon kings, casino moguls, slumlords, Wall Street parasites, petro-boyars, inheritance brats, drug kingpins, communist tyrants, “ex”-communist KGB agents and Nazis. Overwhelmingly and decisively defeat that monstrous consortium and save civilization.