🇳🇱
Things never to confuse:
* kindness - weakness
* stupidity - mallice
* lust - love
* learning oppertunity - failure
@freemo Wait, aren't the last set the same thing?
Usually :)
It is only a failure if you give up. Otherwise it was just another data point towards success.
@freemo depending on the disposition of people, these pairs aren't necessarily a given. E.g. something may be stupid, but only if observed in a limited frame. Sometimes, if the lead up to it is included, it could be different, and e.g. easily avoided if properly acted upon.
@freemo in my case, especially given the number of malicious actions and how much effort was put in plain and obvious deception. Like .. I'm still left with myriad if questions.
What is something that is stupid from one point of view but malicious from the other and both are correct?
@freemo ah, I didn't mean necessarily from within the same pair, but I'll try: if a prior action is not considered.
Let's say, one investigates a bug and finds a piece of code. If one considers only "X finds code", then you can judge: either "just happened to find <code>" or "he went looking". However, if you consider the larger picture, a bug led X there. Not really stupid or malice, but just obvious consequence of. One could still argue stupid or malice but always with significant influence.
@freemo hope I'm explaining it well; was hitting the character limit. I know there is a nicer word to replace "influence" but I can't seem to recall.
@freemo actually, I don't like this explanation. It doesn't quite express what I have in mind.
My point is supposed to be concerning how perspective changes interpretation.
@freemo
Pragmatic optimism - toxic optimism