RE: A proposal for a friendlier Emacs

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

>   > > > 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.
> 
>   > (A question is criticism now?)
> 
> 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=conflate

Other definitions (they all say the same thing):

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=conflate+definition&t=brave&ia=definition

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:
> 
>   The number of registered repository users who
>   have clicked on "add to favourites" for the
>   package in question.
> 
>   > I questioned whether "registered repository users"
>   > is a good proxy for Emacs users.
> 
> 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.