we want python software

Wed Dec 6 11:47:07 EST 2017

On Wednesday 06 December 2017 11:33:14 Steve D'Aprano wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:54 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM, km <srikrishnamohan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Remember that you are wasting time of lakhs of  python subscribers
> >> by asking such dumb questions being tech students.  You people can
> >> Google and watch movies / songs online  and you can't find how to
> >> download and install python ? That's ridiculous!
> >
> > This attack is unwarranted. Please don't set fire to people simply
> > because they asked a question like this.
>
> I'm going to defend KM (srikrishnamohan) -- his comments were not "an
> attack", they are a well-deserved criticism of a *tech student* who
> apparently made zero effort to find out how to download Python before
> asking others to do it for him.
>
> I'm sorry for the length of this post. It is trivially easy to sink
> the boots in and tell KM off for his blunt criticism of the OP's
> request. But in the face of this hostile environment (out of the nine
> people who responded to this thread, no fewer than three have piled
> onto KM to tell him off), it isn't so easy to get through the message
> of why we shouldn't always coddle people asking questions like that
> asked by the OP, and why KM's response was tough but fair.
>
> It's not enough to merely shout back "No, you're wrong!", hence the
> length of this reply.
>
>
> Its been a while since I've seen anyone here link to "How to ask
> questions the smart way":
>
> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>
> and quote this:
>
>
>     When you ask your question, display the fact that you have done
>     these things [try to find an answer] first; this will help
> establish that you're not being a lazy sponge and wasting people's
> time.
>
>
> (And more importantly: *you might learn something* by trying to solve
> your own problem.)
>
> And yes, I'm aware of the irony of me taking this position only a
> couple of posts after I asked the group to run some code for me
> without explaining why I couldn't run it myself.[1]
>
> The difference is, I have many years of answering other people's
> questions, I'm well known here, and I have a proven track record of
> not being a lazy sponge. But if somebody wants to take me to task for
> not explicitly stating why I wasn't running the code myself, I will
> preemptively take it in good grace and accept the criticism. Mea
> culpa.
>
> How likely is it that somebody who is tech-savvy enough to sign up and
> post to the Python-List mailing list is not savvy enough to have heard
> of google or to have thought of search terms "download Python"?
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=download%20python
>
> We're not talking about a young child, or some other barely computer
> literate person, but somebody studying for a Bachelor of Technology in
> India.
>
> Offering criticism is not attacking somebody. Not even tough
> criticism.
>
> And if you are thinking that it is, well, consider the beam in your
> own eye before the mote in KM's. You have just "attacked" (criticised)
> KM quite harshly, accusing him of making an "unwarranted" attack (I
> think it was very warranted), and using a metaphor which has
> particular cultural and colonial associations in India and
> neighbouring countries which we Westerners should be wary of making
> without good cause.[2]
>
> When somebody mildly breaches social norms, even the norms of a tech
> forum, mild shaming is often an effective method of enforcement. I'm
> not saying that the OP should be doxxed, his family and employer
> harassed, ripped apart on social media, but KM telling him off for
> wasting people's time seems fair to me. We can assume that the OP
> isn't a two year old. He should know better, and we ought to expect
> more from him. Its not a crime if he doesn't, but we don't have to
> molly-coddle him either.
>
> Consider your bible: a soft answer turns away wrath. But the bible
> never says that the wrath wasn't justified in the first place. KM is
> clearly angry at the OP's behaviour, hence his strong words. We should
> balance our concern about driving away newbies like the OP with some
> concern about the justified anger at needy, entitled, demanding people
> who take, take, take and never give back. "Smart Questions" (above) is
> not just good advice, it is also a set of social norms, and the OP
> violated them.
>
> And again, consider your own beam: what you are complaining about KM
> doing to the OP, is exactly what you, Ethan and others are attempting
> to do to KM. You consider KM's actions to have violated *your* social
> norm of "be nice" and consequently you are trying to shame KM into
> changing his behaviour to meet those norms, by chastising him and
> telling him off for supposedly attacking the OP, for being
> condescending, for being hateful.
>
> Ironically, it appears that both KM and the OP are newbies. Aren't we
> supposed to be more welcoming to newbies?
>
> > You can be far more courteous
> > than this, even if you refuse to help. Particularly, the "you
> > people" sounds like a blanket statement, which is almost certainly
> > not useful to the discussion.
>
> I think that given both posters appear to be Indian, perhaps there's
> some cultural baggage that we outsiders aren't privy too. I might
> guess that it could have something to do with the (allegedly) high
> incidence of academic dishonesty and cheating amongst India's
> students, many students feeling that they are entitled to pass courses
> without doing any work or studying.
>
> http://beta.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-c1-india-cheating-20140416-m-
>story.html
>
>
> You (and a few others) have "attacked" (criticised) someone who shows
> signs of being concerned about the quality of discussion in this
> forum, while encouraging somebody who shows signs of possibly becoming
> an entitled, needy, demanding Help Vampire:
>
> http://www.skidmore.edu/~pdwyer/e/eoc/help_vampire.htm
>
> Now to be fair to the OP, Jyothiswaroop Reddy, may not realise he is
> breaking a social norm for a tech group, perhaps due to cluelessness,
> inexperience, or a lifetime of entitlement where his every need has
> been done for him. I'm not saying he should be shunned.
>
> But a swift kick up the (virtual) behind is a wake-up call. KM's
> comments were tough but fair: Jyothiswaroop *is* wasting people's time
> with a simple problem that he should be capable of solving himself, or
> at least making an attempt to solve it himself, and it doesn't require
> much nous to google for "Download Python" before asking for help.
>
> In our urge to be inclusive, we forget that it is just basic simple
> politeness that before asking strangers for a favour, we should make
> an honest attempt to solve the problem ourselves. If you don't, but
> still expect others to solve your problems for you, that's a violation
> of some pretty deeply embedded cultural norms about social cheating
> (taking advantage of others without giving back). Those norms are so
> deeply embedded they might even be biological. I can completely
> understand KM's apparant anger.
>
> The bottom line is, I disagree that KM's posts were out of line and
> more worthy of chastisement than Jyothiswaroop's post.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] I cannot compile Python 3.6 or better on any of the computers I
> have access to at the moment -- although it's probably time for me to
> try again in case those dependency problems have been fixed.
>
> [2] Given the historical practice of suttee (sati) and the questions
> it raises about colonial imperialism[3], as well as the still-current
> practice of dowry murder[4] and even more vicious crimes[5] in India,
> accusing KM of setting another person on fire (even metaphorically) is
> not something I'd do so casually.
>
> [3] http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/suttee.html
>
> [4] https://preview.tinyurl.com/y86vglvm
>
> [5] https://preview.tinyurl.com/hnaa29w
>
>
> --
> Steve
> “Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and
> sure enough, things got worse.

+100 Steve, spot on IOW.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>