you seem to be responding to a position i don’t have. apologies if i’ve miscommunicated here.
to be clear, then: i do not endorse a rule by which, if anyone takes offense at a joke, the jokester must repay.
anyone can be offended at anything! you are not obligated to care.
the premise from the original essay is that:
you tried to brighten the mood with a joke
you instead darkened the mood.
narrowly, i think that in that situation, there is something for you to learn. (it doesn’t have to be “tell less jokes”! you can learn “that particular topic is not appropriate here”, or “i am not as good a judge of what’s funny as i thought”, or even just “dang, my timing was off”. it can be a very, very specific lesson.)
my normative claim is that you ‘should’ learn what you can in this situation. and you can then make a true apology: “i’m sorry. i made a mistake, but i’ve learned something.”
i tried to explain that in various ways and repeating myself and doesn’t sure it useful to do that again, and i get the feeling from that replay that you simply not understand my claim, despite me already made it in previous comment, and it doesn’t feel you engage with any of my claims, so here is one last attempt:
if someone who err 1 time out of 100 make the conclusion is time was off, and change his algorithm to one that does not tell his joke, instead of updating his probability to tell this joke slightly less in a way that make him still tell the joke, he is doing the wrong update.
this is not what you do when you program simple neuron network and update in with backpropagation. the mathematically right update is “i have slightly less pobability to commit the same error, but i would have behave the same way unless i get this input a lot of more times”.
so you advocate doing the mathematically-wrong thing. we should learn what we can, but what you advocate is literally over-correction.
you seem to be responding to a position i don’t have. apologies if i’ve miscommunicated here.
to be clear, then: i do not endorse a rule by which, if anyone takes offense at a joke, the jokester must repay.
anyone can be offended at anything! you are not obligated to care.
the premise from the original essay is that:
you tried to brighten the mood with a joke
you instead darkened the mood.
narrowly, i think that in that situation, there is something for you to learn. (it doesn’t have to be “tell less jokes”! you can learn “that particular topic is not appropriate here”, or “i am not as good a judge of what’s funny as i thought”, or even just “dang, my timing was off”. it can be a very, very specific lesson.)
my normative claim is that you ‘should’ learn what you can in this situation. and you can then make a true apology: “i’m sorry. i made a mistake, but i’ve learned something.”
i tried to explain that in various ways and repeating myself and doesn’t sure it useful to do that again, and i get the feeling from that replay that you simply not understand my claim, despite me already made it in previous comment, and it doesn’t feel you engage with any of my claims, so here is one last attempt:
if someone who err 1 time out of 100 make the conclusion is time was off, and change his algorithm to one that does not tell his joke, instead of updating his probability to tell this joke slightly less in a way that make him still tell the joke, he is doing the wrong update.
this is not what you do when you program simple neuron network and update in with backpropagation. the mathematically right update is “i have slightly less pobability to commit the same error, but i would have behave the same way unless i get this input a lot of more times”.
so you advocate doing the mathematically-wrong thing. we should learn what we can, but what you advocate is literally over-correction.
it seems your model is that telling a joke is like rolling a die. sometimes you get a 1, and the joke falls flat.
this is not my model at all. each joke is different. you can learn which ones work and which ones don’t.
maybe it helps to ask: how does the person get good enough at jokes that they succeed 99⁄100 times? they have been learning, no? so do more of that.
no, this is not what i said. this is not at all what i said, and i actually said something that is very close to the opposite of that.
i don’t know who to communicate if i say something and you come to the conclusion that i believe the opposite of that, so i’m bowing out.