Specificity is less important than effective communication.
Specificity is effective communication… If you say “hand me the pen” while there is a pen and a pencil in front of me, you don’t then get to be pissed that I handed you the pen when you meant pencil. You’re the one who isn’t communicating effectively. Same thing here. If you ask if DeepSeek (which is the web-ui to the DeepSeek-chat model) is safe to use and I outline examples specifically why it can’t really be trusted in certain situations, you don’t then get to be pissed because you actually meant the model itself (DeepSeek-Chat/R1)…
Right, which is why science educators use all the most specific and correct terms rather than tailoring their speech to their audience. Don’t be such a pedant and realize that the OP clearly didn’t know the difference from the outset. You’re so concerned about being correct that you fully missed being right.
Right, which is why science educators use all the most specific and correct terms rather than tailoring their speech to their audience.
lmao what in the fuck did you just say? You don’t even hear yourself when you speak, do you? Yes. The scientists–the least pedantic people we can collectively think of. /s
You’re being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Are you seriously trying to suggest that science educators use jargon? Watch a TED talk. Attend an open lecture. Open youtube or your preferred equivalent. You’re so wrong it’s funny. Good communicators reach their audience where they are.
Additionally, it’s pedantry to the extreme to pretend that me saying “I use deepseek,” referring to my self-hosted solution, is incorrect, when it absolutely is deepseek. Yes, you could be more specific, but it absolutely is correct to refer to deepseek in any of its forms as deepseek. Chat-GPT is Chat-GPT, regardless of version. You’ve made up rules you’re expecting others to follow, and the rules themselves are inconsistent with how people speak.
You care so much about being right that you’ll move any number of goalposts and define things any way you like just to be absolutely, technically correct. The idea of saying, “You know what, I didn’t think about that. I could’ve been more nuanced,” must be a nightmare to you.
Top to bottom this is the most insane fucking conversation I’ve ever had. You’ve convinced yourself that correctly identifying objects is “jargon” because your brain can’t physically live in a world where you’re unjustified. It’s a literal masterclass of sociopathy. It’s so fucked up you’re claiming that I “just want to win online arguments” while you twist and contort reality into a version of events where you’re somehow “not wrong” to the point where you’re claiming that correctly identifying objects somehow isn’t important and is considered “jargon.” You said that SCIENTISTS aren’t pedantic. For fucks sake man. Talk to a therapist; seek help.
Worst of all, you sound ignorant. Like… Very ignorant. Like taking your car to a mechanic and them saying you need new wheel bearings and instead of wheel bearings you get new tires and when your tire disconnects from your frame you run back to the mechanic and lambast them for being stupid and having to be right all the time because…you completely misrepresented what they had said because they “used jargon!” kind of ignorant. lol
The group chat is going crazy at these replies man.
Jargon was an example from an analogous situation, that of someone knowledgeable explaining to a beginner. OP didn’t understand you. My contribution explained it to them. You care more about pedantry than effective communication. I don’t know what else to tell you. Seriously, find me anyone doing science communication that uses technical language rather than general. I’d love to provide as many counter examples as you need. My point is that your communication wasn’t as effective as it could be, and rather than accepting a helpful addition to the conversation, you made it defensive. Again, I’m not suggesting you are using jargon. What you are doing, assuming meaning from a beginner’s usage of general speech, is the same as an expert choosing jargon when interfacing with a member of the general public. In good communication, it just doesn’t happen.
If the group chat thinks absolute specificity is more important than effective communication, that is, communication that the other party understands, then they can be wrong too. OP did not understand you. My followup with them confirms this. This is a waste of my time.
Specificity is effective communication… If you say “hand me the pen” while there is a pen and a pencil in front of me, you don’t then get to be pissed that I handed you the pen when you meant pencil. You’re the one who isn’t communicating effectively. Same thing here. If you ask if DeepSeek (which is the web-ui to the DeepSeek-chat model) is safe to use and I outline examples specifically why it can’t really be trusted in certain situations, you don’t then get to be pissed because you actually meant the model itself (DeepSeek-Chat/R1)…
Pretty simple stuff.
Right, which is why science educators use all the most specific and correct terms rather than tailoring their speech to their audience. Don’t be such a pedant and realize that the OP clearly didn’t know the difference from the outset. You’re so concerned about being correct that you fully missed being right.
lmao what in the fuck did you just say? You don’t even hear yourself when you speak, do you? Yes. The scientists–the least pedantic people we can collectively think of. /s
You’re being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Are you seriously trying to suggest that science educators use jargon? Watch a TED talk. Attend an open lecture. Open youtube or your preferred equivalent. You’re so wrong it’s funny. Good communicators reach their audience where they are.
Additionally, it’s pedantry to the extreme to pretend that me saying “I use deepseek,” referring to my self-hosted solution, is incorrect, when it absolutely is deepseek. Yes, you could be more specific, but it absolutely is correct to refer to deepseek in any of its forms as deepseek. Chat-GPT is Chat-GPT, regardless of version. You’ve made up rules you’re expecting others to follow, and the rules themselves are inconsistent with how people speak.
You care so much about being right that you’ll move any number of goalposts and define things any way you like just to be absolutely, technically correct. The idea of saying, “You know what, I didn’t think about that. I could’ve been more nuanced,” must be a nightmare to you.
Top to bottom this is the most insane fucking conversation I’ve ever had. You’ve convinced yourself that correctly identifying objects is “jargon” because your brain can’t physically live in a world where you’re unjustified. It’s a literal masterclass of sociopathy. It’s so fucked up you’re claiming that I “just want to win online arguments” while you twist and contort reality into a version of events where you’re somehow “not wrong” to the point where you’re claiming that correctly identifying objects somehow isn’t important and is considered “jargon.” You said that SCIENTISTS aren’t pedantic. For fucks sake man. Talk to a therapist; seek help.
Worst of all, you sound ignorant. Like… Very ignorant. Like taking your car to a mechanic and them saying you need new wheel bearings and instead of wheel bearings you get new tires and when your tire disconnects from your frame you run back to the mechanic and lambast them for being stupid and having to be right all the time because…you completely misrepresented what they had said because they “used jargon!” kind of ignorant. lol
The group chat is going crazy at these replies man.
Jargon was an example from an analogous situation, that of someone knowledgeable explaining to a beginner. OP didn’t understand you. My contribution explained it to them. You care more about pedantry than effective communication. I don’t know what else to tell you. Seriously, find me anyone doing science communication that uses technical language rather than general. I’d love to provide as many counter examples as you need. My point is that your communication wasn’t as effective as it could be, and rather than accepting a helpful addition to the conversation, you made it defensive. Again, I’m not suggesting you are using jargon. What you are doing, assuming meaning from a beginner’s usage of general speech, is the same as an expert choosing jargon when interfacing with a member of the general public. In good communication, it just doesn’t happen.
If the group chat thinks absolute specificity is more important than effective communication, that is, communication that the other party understands, then they can be wrong too. OP did not understand you. My followup with them confirms this. This is a waste of my time.