> what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"?
Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution?
If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things.
> Circular logic at its finest.
Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above.
> based on zero experience in subject matter.
Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. That's why I picked that particular analogy to run with: beacuse I do know what people whose job it is to do things like structural engineering calculations are expected to know, and I can compare that with what my common sense would expect people whose job it is to run Congress would be expected to know.
> nobody should be convinced by your argument
It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.
>Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things.
I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today.
It is appalling that we are at that stage, but assuming that the rules are simple, and the staffers are inept is unwarranted.
>Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above.
Ah, same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent.
Similarly, every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages, and in particular = C++, and would not ever need to resort to StackOverflow to look up or ask a question. It's just common sense!
Wait, no, it isn't, and your entire argument boils down to "it's just common sense that I'm right!".
For one, the US Congress is not a common institution, but even if it were, it's just common sense!" isn't even an argument.
>Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry.
The subject matter is congressional rules. You can talk about construction all day long, but your opinions on the subject matter are unqualified and based on zero experience (i.e. worthless).
Again, you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex.
>It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.
It seems incorrectly. I am basing my opinions on the information presented in the article, and on the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant.
Also, a person quoted in the article commented in this very thread, saying essentially the same things as I said above [1].
So, I have a lot of basis for my assumptions, as well as actual information.
> I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today.
Then it's the job of the people who run Congress to fix that. Which requires them to know what the rules currently are, so they can figure out how to fix them.
> assuming that the rules are simple
I made no such assumption.
> and the staffers are inept is unwarranted.
I didn't assume the staffers are inept; I concluded it from their observed behavior. I don't see what else I could conclude from the fact that they don't know the rules that it's their job to know.
> same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent.
Not off the top of their head, but being able to look them up without having to depend on someone on Twitter, yes. Similarly, the people who run Congress should be able to find this information themselves; they shouldn't have to depend on someone on Twitter to do it.
> every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages
Not all of them, because no software engineer uses all of them. But for the ones you do use, yes, you should have a good working knowledge of their spec, and should be able to look up details when you need to, and not depend on someone on Twitter (or Stack Overflow, for that matter) to do it.
If you're at the stage where you're having to ask people on the Internet about such things, you aren't yet a software engineer. You're just an aspiring one. The people who run Congress are not "aspiring" to that job. They have it. Big difference.
Apparently you have much lower standards than I do for what people are supposed to know as part of their jobs. At least when those jobs are at the level of power and influence of Congress and its staffers. Sure, if you're just writing software for yourself or for a small company, you can get away with asking questions on Stack Overflow a lot. If you're just doing structural calculations for a doll house for your kid to play with, you don't need a PE license.
But we're not talking about that kind of job here. We're talking about the US Congress, the legislative body of the most powerful country in the world. You say the US Congress is not a "common" institution, and indeed it's not: our standards for what its members and staffers should know should be higher than they would be for a "common" institution. If your common sense isn't telling you that, I don't know what else to say: clearly you and I live on different planets if that's the case.
> you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex.
I have made no such claim. I am claiming that the work of that 20-year-old should be being done by Congress and its staffers. That's their job. The fact that the work required is "deep and complex" does not excuse Congress and its staffers from doing it.
> the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant.
Again, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that the 20-year-old is not a "savant". I'm saying that the fact that Congress and its staffers are calling him one means that they are not doing their jobs. If they were doing their jobs, their response to him would be something like "Wow, you have a level of knowledge of this stuff pretty close to ours." Not "Hey, can we ask you questions because we can't be bothered to do our jobs ourselves?"
>But for the ones you do use, yes, you should have a good working knowledge of their spec, and should be able to look up details when you need to, and not depend on someone on Twitter (or Stack Overflow, for that matter) to do it.
The staffers don't depend on Twitter to do their job, and software engineers don't need to depend on Stack Overflow to use it.
To say that people who ask questions on Stack Overflow aren't yet software engineers is asinine.
>If you're at the stage where you're having to ask people on the Internet about such things, you aren't yet a software engineer. You're just an aspiring one.
If your definition of proficiency is "never asks questions", then your definition is a bad one.
Otherwise, it makes no difference whether questions are asked on the Internet or not.
>If they were doing their jobs, their response to him would be something like "Wow, you have a level of knowledge of this stuff pretty close to ours." Not "Hey, can we ask you questions because we can't be bothered to do our jobs ourselves?"
They are doing their jobs. The responsibility for the job falls on them. And if they can use a resource (an enthusiastic savant, Twitter, reddit, ChatGPT, ...) that allows them to do it faster, they're doing a good job.
As a software engineer, if you are spending an hour on something you could find out by asking in 5 minutes (taking 5 minutes of your time, and 5 minutes of someone else's), you are a bad software engineer, and are wasting your employer's money.
If they can't do their job without Twitter, then I can agree with the rest of what you said.
Sadly, the entire Congress is so dysfunctional that it's very hard to determine whether the staffers do or don't do a good job (and which of these possibilities is a better one).
That's the part which the UK student doesn't seem to get (and which makes me feel the savant label is fitting): knowing all the rules doesn't matter when playing by the rules isn't a goal.
Same goes for having the power which they never intended to use in the first place, because the unwritten rules matter more.
The whole thing about rules is that without a central enforcement mechanism, it's all about whether you have enough clout and chutzpah to use or break a certain rule. Just because a rule exists (and has been enacted before), doesn't mean invoking it isn't free.
It's just cheaper than doing the same thing against the rules.
Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution?
If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things.
> Circular logic at its finest.
Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above.
> based on zero experience in subject matter.
Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. That's why I picked that particular analogy to run with: beacuse I do know what people whose job it is to do things like structural engineering calculations are expected to know, and I can compare that with what my common sense would expect people whose job it is to run Congress would be expected to know.
> nobody should be convinced by your argument
It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.