From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: A proposal for a friendlier Emacs Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 12:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39133459-6582-4772-b2bf-03eb123cb22b@default> References: <4be18b5f-dc07-2703-a2de-1ed08916ebdf@gmail.com> <1e340d941b6fd0b21a477f39fc935468@condition-alpha.com> <48e632cab427c838b1cc20a190f4959d@condition-alpha.com> <91bb3e347d5caed9487a2cd8e6d0db04@condition-alpha.com> <4deb019b-8034-4f18-9bd6-98424a0f09ee@default> <916af7e9-961b-44e5-ab11-0f128f52a8fe@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5116"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: alexander.adolf@condition-alpha.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 27 21:50:25 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kMcgi-0001Ch-6p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 21:50:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39792 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMcgg-0004z3-Un for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 15:50:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39112) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMcfp-0004X1-3D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 15:49:29 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:57892) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kMcfl-00016g-1q; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 15:49:28 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08RJnKWH096563; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:49:20 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=NzapPMNg38MeHHe9ErvHVacw7SymKocNxRn2zJrJjIk=; b=ybkWPA4PjTc867i4PBSMYklOF7CKthQrHdphyRpnL36Y9OsD6sfZ7zlHQS+axSeRZYnq xaGUvaJXL0UONCiAdXpa/B0v6Hal0Jhvaiw6btwKZmXES5kAFr0ezp5BSE/Q9Teygw3a AQ0036AqwpjForhPKQtfKPcYnEaZXQkF7BVXwPEPV36eykmp3BsxeqY4hicyLeSPA4cX YASCvk3JtB/IkjwNWTwAXg1e3+VgqfIETuZeHpEX2QKH4UKppHefxdv7Xo4XXGxWTE51 oB3gDQKpfbRbcMq53Hp453TYwB6TgJPdHqmx1lrUTr8cbTkivyShnbctHPkU7+cjEtpf EA== Original-Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 33sx9mtbcf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:49:19 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08RJl62G033001; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:49:19 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 33tfhvg4cf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:49:18 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 08RJnIR5029955; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:49:18 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5056.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9757 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009270187 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9757 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009270188 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.85; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/27 15:14:13 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -53 X-Spam_score: -5.4 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.576, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.462, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:256550 Archived-At: > > > > Should we really conflate the set of Emacs > > > > users with "registered repository users"? > > > > > > I don't follow you. You seem to be criticizing > > > something but I don't know what. >=20 > > (A question is criticism now?) >=20 > That question is a criticism because it uses the word > "conflate". That word asserts that something is a mistake. No, it does not assert that. Verb: conflate kun'fleyt Add together different elements "The colours conflate well"; - blend, flux, mix, commingle, immix, fuse, coalesce, meld, combine, merge https://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=3Dconflate Other definitions (they all say the same thing): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=3Dconflate+definition&t=3Dbrave&ia=3Ddefinition In logic/reasoning, conflation _can_ give rise to confusion, but it need not do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation My point was precisely to raise the question of whether conflating the set of Emacs users with the set of Emacs users who are registered somewhere can lead to misunderstanding or confusion. Perhaps it can mislead, and if so won't necessarily help clarity. If we're looking for a poll/sampling, is this a helpful way to represent Emacs users in general? Frankly, I don't know. But I recognize that there's a conflation - the two sets aren't the same. I could have used the word "identify". I used "conflate" to underline that they're different. But both "identify" (in the sense of declaring that two things are the same) and "conflate" fit here. As does your use of "proxy". > I did not know know what it was that allegedly > is a mistake. But you explained: it was this: >=20 > The number of registered repository users who > have clicked on "add to favourites" for the > package in question. >=20 > > I questioned whether "registered repository users" > > is a good proxy for Emacs users. >=20 > No, you suggested I was "conflating" things, and that > is always unkind. No, see above. I'm sorry you misunderstood it as unkind. > As for whether it is a good proxy, I don't know > and I said nothing about that. That was my question: how good a proxy is it? I don't know. But I know it's a proxy, and I raised the question of how good it is, whether we should take the one for the other, here. I don't know what the best proxy for this might be.