https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404465
arcli...@gmail.com <arcli...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |testcase
--- Comment #11 from arcli...@gmail.com <arcli...@gmail.com> ---
The original bug report author has NOT "intentionally closed" this Bug Report.
This is a test case minus the requested peer group due to the apparent hegemony
in preventing field references to broadcast the principle issues.
It is now of interest that this matter is forwarded to Linus for his
observation of the attempt to discuss openly the difficulty in discussing
meta-programming with an author who remains closed to the idea of a minimal
code investment because they are unaware of the impact their code has had and
their continued disrespect for the experience this has enforced - yet they are
responding with outrage, as too is everybody else! This has confirmed the
inequality that has corrupted the discussion of pure logic upon which this
report is based to describe the behaviour of the authors code and the author
towards their own code as unequal to their regard for the systems within which
it is designed to run.
This matter cannot be allowed to continue as it sets a very poor example to the
author primarily, to the 3rd party contributors equally for their contributions
and the next generation of code authors should this matter occur to them also
as an option to their coding as it has occurred to me but has already been well
documented by many others and for sound reason. For me to cross the line is
exemplary since the code author presented no opportunity to engage equally. I
chose to engage the code author directly with a test case to probe the code
authors intellectual capacity to understand in case they required a special
needs approach to resolve the issue. The response to this probe revealed a
mental capacity to respond to impact with emotion equal to that caused by their
code behaviour in a foreign system environment with significant impact because
consent to run n+1 instances of their code was not sought in principle!
Observers have so far reacted to this event as though I am guilty of bad
practice without recognizing either the purpose of the probe or the context of
the probe, giving rise to my concern that this culture of coding is indeed
hardened to a perspective of meritocracy but to a Newtonian perspective of
absolute values.
Human intellect has already progressed to understand a better framework by
observation and evidence of proof.
That even absolute values are based upon a relativistic framework whereby the
context is fundamentally linked to and is equal to the observed object. Such
that in order to describe accurately any object, it must be described by its
context.
This framework of obligatory context is called relativity. To drop in a name
for future reference, Schrödinger's cat was in an ambiguous state until an
inquiry altered its state by nature of the fundamental relationship between
object and context.
Normally the principle issue would have remained open to discussion in context
to the community of interest.
However the actions taken to prematurely close and exclude this issue from open
discussion is a definitive characteristic of closed thinking which contradicts
the historical and core reasoning of the whole of Linux and open source code
output. For example the task of merging code streams is dependent upon a
relativistic and strategic understanding of the whole perspective of Linux.
I feel this principle issue deserves recognition by the originating author of
Linux because of implicit respect for context in order for this issue to be
described in full.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
