[GoLUG] Cunningham's Law

[Steve Litt]

Syeed Ali said on Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:37:10 -0700

>Steve, did someone beat you to the concept?
>
>
>Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the
>internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."
>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law

Some folks on this mailing list might not know what you're talking
about Sy. Perhaps even folks I've used the technique on. And one thing:
I post the right answer (It functions), but it's a kludge. Anyway:

I've described my technique many times in many places, including trying
to get it included in ESR's and Rick Moen's "How to Ask Questions the
Smart Way", where it was rejected for being too manipulative.

The only written description I could find is
from https://marc.info/?l=lyx-users&m=138264294124079 . 
The following is a quote of the relevant material:

===============================================================

Sometimes you post a concise symptom description and minimal example
and do everything right, and you know *someone* on the list has info,
but you're met with deafening silence. It's time for the patented,
can't miss, Steve Litt Answer-Getting Method (SLAGM). What you do is
make some sort of kludge to fix your symptom. For instance, with LyX it
might be to change your View->PDF (ps2pdf) so that it runs some sort of
awk script that copies your LyX file to a dummy, modifies the dummy, and
compiles *that*. You then get on the list and brag about your kludge,
except you don't call it a kludge, you call it a solution, and in a
subdued, low key way you make it obvious that you think you've displayed
cleverness in the solution. In less than 24 hours, all those people who
didn't have the time to answer your question will leapfrog each other
telling you how stupid your solution is, and providing better
solutions. You mix and match those better solutions to make your real
solution for yourself. Or, if nobody responds, or if people respond
"hey man, that's a cool solution", then you actually use your kludge on
an ongoing basis. Either way, you have it solved, and you know your
solution is the best available.

===============================================================


Many people think there's something unethical about my method. They say
it's exploitive. But what's so ethical about a person who doesn't bother
to help a person in need but jumps in gleefully to insult that person's
efforts in providing his own solution? Is it really unethical to
exploit such people?

By the way, my method caused a change in the Lua language. That's
right. After finding out that Lua didn't have a break statement to get
out of a loop, I invented a special table in which you could put break
logic, continue logic, and even other stuff. I bragged about it on the
list, and one guy said "well, I think Steve has proven that Lua needs a
break statement to avoid stuff like this." The next version had a break
statement, which unfortunately was implemented using a GOTO, so I
continued using my kludge.

Now every one of you knows how to get information. Whether you choose
to use my method is up to you. All I ask is that before you use this
method, you formulate a clear unambigous problem statement, create a
tiny program that showcases the problem, do some web searching, and ask
for help. When no help arrives, you can decide whether to use the Steve
Litt Answer-Getting Method.

SteveT

Steve Litt 

http://444domains.com