Re: [PATCH] Fix futures, %worker-count shouldn't be zero to prevent halting

> So you are saying I'm hypocritical, right?  I lost sight of Nala's
> purpose and turned this exchange into a contest.  Moreover, I projected
> onto you my own negative qualities, with which I cannot deal internally.
>
> Did I get that right?

I didn't say write about Nala's (personal) purpose (and neither did you 
IIRC), I wrote about the purpose of this particular exchange or these 
exchanges in general. Though such purposes are related ofc.

On projection: you are reading too much into it. First scrap the 'with 
which I cannot deal internally', I didn't write or imply that. Also, 
there is a difference between not dealing with things internally and 
being unable to deal with the things. Also insert a 'maybe', it was 
rather hypothetically phrased. Also scrap the 'moreover', as its pretty 
much a reformulation about the same thing.

But yes, if someone else (A) out of nowhere claims or implies you (B) 
(well, me) are doing something as a contest, and this is simply untrue, 
then that can lead B to a reasonable guess that A is doing an opposite 
contest.

> Hypocrisy is a falsehood, namely "the practice of professing beliefs,
> feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess" [1] but I meant
> what I wrote.  (I did not claim virtue.)  Are you taking me at face
> value, or are you superimposing a layer of your own?
I don't do beliefs/virtues/... subcategorisation.

I take a slightly different notion of hypocrisy, where the claimed 
normative ethics of someone do not match their own actions. (*). Whether 
someone meant something or not, is, practically, irrelevant. What 
matters is their actions (^). It is possible to simultaneously believe X 
, do !X, and not recognise !X as such. (Also, previous sentence with 
'believe => claim' replacement.)

So, I can take a hypocrite at face value and simultaneously recognise 
their hypocrisy.

Yes to former, no to latter.

(^) This includes inaction, speech, and excludes internal thought processes.

(*) technically if someone claims that everyone except themselves must 
do a certain thing (and mention that 'except themselves'), that wouldn't 
be hypocrisy in this sense. But the goal here isn't to propose some 
general definition of hypocrisy, only to elaborate on what is meant.

Best regards,
Maxime Devos