> Your perspective on software is that of a consumer, so you're not necessarily wrong. You're in the majority of people using software along with all those people having their "holy wars".
What do either of those statements mean? You neither say what I am not necessarily wrong about, and the second sentence means that - everyone is using software? The majority and the minority are both doing something?
> The majority of people who write software for a living are silent about this because it's completely irrelevant to their lives.
I’m not sure if this is accurate. Programmers have opinion, taste-based arguments all the time, sometimes based on dubious assertions. People pay attention to the proclamations of Linus Torvalds or John Carmack even when sometimes they’re not necessarily based on evidence, and parrot it as prophecy. Though sure, they are also not the norm, and becoming a public figure changes one’s behavior. (Uncle Bob Martin appears to have turned into a Twitter crank in recent years, for example.)
> It's like this with all other creative work too. As they say "a poor craftsman blames his tools", but more generally improvisation is expected when you're supposed to know what you're doing.
Like what? What are you referring to? What does improvisation have to do with what you were just writing about?
> Professionals can't afford to be helpless.
What is making them helpless? What are they doing or not doing?
> In fact, that's why we have so many competing standards in technology to begin with.
Okay this might be relevant. So you’re saying what I was talking about- tech holy wars based on opinions and superstition- causes competing standards?
> Constant reinvention is the most boneheaded way to progress, but my point is that this is in direct opposition to everything you're saying.
What does constant reinvention have to do with anything? What is an example of reinvention?
> You seem to be insisting that there's ignorance where there is just apathy.
I am not saying that all of engineering is ignorant, I am simply making the banal and obvious observation that any field of human activity will contain pockets of emotion-based conclusions that might not reflect reality.
The original point is that even the most seemingly empirical, scientific, whatever, domain might still involve facets that aren’t so scientific.
What does apathy have to do with it? If you were to rebut my point, you can simply say, “no there is no ignorance.” Why are you contrasting it with apathy?
> For every one person whining, the internet has a chorus of hundreds.
What does this sentence mean? A chorus of hundreds not what, not whining? The internet is full of whining choruses.
> On the other side of the fence, there are dozens of people who could fix it in their sleep just ignoring it because it doesn't bother them that bad.
Fix what? Ignoring what? What are you referring to?
> That's what makes software so different from manufacturing plastic doodads at scale. You at least don't need a factory, but there are probably countless other reasons.
??? Countless other reasons for what? Why are you contrasting software with physical engineering in a way completely irrelevant to my prior comparison?
Finally, I haven’t even touched upon your original response, which starts with “All culture is shared ignorance.” Which, while sounding both profound and impressive at first, is meaningless. All culture is shared knowledge as well. All culture is share norms, mores, values. What does it all mean?
> HN is really going off the rails allowing this, but I know it's hard to rein it all in.
Allowing what? Allowing people to write things? Last I checked people flag plenty of posts, including trolling. Rein what all in? Trolling?