Readit News logoReadit News
OmarShehata commented on Why users cannot create Issues directly   github.com/ghostty-org/gh... · Posted by u/xpe
goku12 · 2 months ago
This is the natural way to do it. I have had to use the issue tracker for asking questions (support requests) or informing the developer of something (like of implementing a related feature in another software). Clearly, those aren't issues at all, and the normal workflow steps like closing the ticket doesn't make much sense at all. They belong to the discussions list.

Issue trackers should be used exclusively for earmarking and tracking the progress of actionable items. This is somewhat similar to the integration between email clients and task managers, like how it's done in Gmail, Zoho, etc. You read the message first. If it requires an action from your side, create a task from it and link them.

There are other projects that do this too. A good example is the 'mise' project. Sourcehut projects use this workflow almost exclusively since it's the default by design. I think sourcehut had if before github did. What I would like to see is better integration between discussions/messages and task/issue lists on all these platforms.

OmarShehata · 2 months ago
I think this is the natural process, but how you implement it doesn't matter. A lot of GitHub repos use "unlabelled issue" === "a discussion thread". The benefit is that instead of having to search two separate systems, you can just search one (if you can have an aggregate search over both then it really doesn't matter), these two implementations are isomorphic
OmarShehata commented on We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds   zettelkasten.de/posts/the... · Posted by u/maksimur
procaryote · 6 months ago
That's very hard to know without being in an FMRI machine while reading, which I wasn't, sadly.

Just functionally, it seems reasonable that something happened before that bad feeling to trigger it, e.g. "trying to fit this with already known things, and finding it doesn't".

OmarShehata · 6 months ago
this isn't a "it depends on what computation happens in this specific case" question, this is a "how does human cognition work".

Every website you visit has the payload delivered over the network before any JS is parsed. It has to, there's no other way. Same with intuition followed by rational thought

OmarShehata commented on We can’t circumvent the work needed to train our minds   zettelkasten.de/posts/the... · Posted by u/maksimur
procaryote · 6 months ago
> The reduced engagement with the material reduces the emotional weight of the whole line of action. You mind is an engine that is fuelled by emotion. Without any emotion, you don’t think. Rather, you try to imitate thinking efficiently.

This doesn't sound true and they don't seem to offer any support for the claim.

There's a whole host of emotion-driven cognitive biases, where an effective counter is to reduce the emotional weight of the whole line of action.

Of course, to their credit, it's only by remembering those biases that I could see their error

OmarShehata · 6 months ago
The first thing that happened in your mind when you read that sentence is (1) a bad feeling. That then triggered (2) a rational, conscious thought that interpreted that bad feeling: "this feels bad because it's not true, here are the reasons why it is not true.

There is ALWAYS an "emotional/intuitive" response that precedes the rational, conscious thought. There's a ton of research on this (see system 1 vs system 2 thinking etc).

There is no way to stop the emotional "thought" from happening before the "rational thought". What you can do is build a loop that self reflects to understand why that emotion was triggered (sometimes, instead of "this feels bad because it's wrong", it's "this feels bad because it points to an inconvenient truth" or "I am hungry and everything I am reading feels bad")

OmarShehata commented on If you're remote, ramble   stephango.com/ramblings... · Posted by u/lawgimenez
codingdave · 7 months ago
I'm with the other commenters who agree in spirit, but would hate the details in the post. Assigned channels where you are expected to post your random thoughts feels utterly dystopian to me.

In my experience, "rambling" channels build up organically... as you have a thought, you share it with someone relevant, not just drop it into a channel and see who reads it. Over time, small group chats evolve naturally, and assuming everyone has communications skills, topics that become relevant to the whole team are then shared with the whole team.

I agree that such discussions are healthy, maybe even required, for a functional remote team. But let people organize themselves - don't prescribe specific methods that teams must follow. The last thing we need is a formal framework of how to have organic discussions.

OmarShehata · 7 months ago
> The last thing we need is a formal framework of how to have organic discussions.

this is no different from best practices for programming though. People take a rule that generally works well, but a manager who doesn't understand it tries to enforce it blindly ("more unit tests!!") and it stops working

computer engineering & social engineering share a lot of the same failure modes (which is good news, if you are very good at debugging computers, but find people & politics confusing, you can unlock the latter once you see in what ways your insight in one domain can transfer to the other)

u/OmarShehata

KarmaCake day1447March 23, 2012
About
Graphics programmer. I like telling stories.

https://omarshehata.me/

View Original