Not "messing with you", I just made a statement based upon an incomplete pre-analysis. It was a premature statement using a "1 msec fidelity requirement" estimate without appropriate backing. I do not YET have sufficient grounds for making this statement. The 6 FPS vs 24 FPS wasn't part of this; that was just someone's assumption that I was unaware.
But do you understand how you keep leaving a paper trail that is best explained by you having just become aware of something you got wrong? The fact that you make mistakes isn't an issue. We all do, and we all have—even those of us with "insurmountable" (ha!) knowledge. What makes it a problem is that your instinctive reaction when this happens is to see if you can double down on the claim, shift the burden of proof, or otherwise save face. If you want to build a reputation for integrity, your
first response should be, "I didn't know that; thanks for telling me."
People's ability to detect evasion is a lot more acute than you think. My spouse is a lawyer; I have some life experience with this. Does it sting a bit when someone surprises you with information that means you have to back down? Yes, of course. But if your goal is to achieve a reputation of integrity, you need to develop the skill of legitimately valuing truth and fact above all else. Remember when you discovered a mistake in your own computations, admitted it, and changed your presentation? Remember how the group's reaction was generally positive and supportive? Aim for that.
Literally everyone who sees the rendezvous footage for the first time doesn't realize it's sped up. They often get an "uncanny valley" vibe from it, but they don't know why. Most find out about the frame rate by being told; a few find out by digging deep and finding where it's documented. Either way, it's perfectly normal for people to be initially fooled. We all were, so don't feel bad.
Are you a nice person in real life? Has life treated you poorly? Does insulting me give you a dopamine boost? Adrenaline? Do you hate me?
As I said, my spouse is a lawyer and so are a lot of my friends—lawyers, law professors, law students. It's one thing to see them in court and another thing to see them at a cookout. Most of us are quite normal, nice people in real life. And you probably are too.
At work I have to be two people too. You have to achieve and maintain a collaborative culture where people actually want to come to work. But then as the senior engineer I have to sit in judgment on people's work and represent best practices, good judgment, and regulatory requirement. I can't let sloppiness or error slide just because Greg and I sometimes have drinks together after work. No, we don't all kick puppies or demand to see the manager everywhere we go. Circumstances sometimes dictate that people take a hard-nosed approach that's incompatible with their demeanor elsewhere.
This forum is adversarial by its very nature, thus creating just those narrow circumstances. Obviously it shouldn't be gratuitously nasty, but despite how its members might deal with their families, friends, and neighbors in real life, here the order of the day is to apply relatively unflinching rigor. Most of the questions we deal with are discernible matters of fact—they either happened or they didn't. Most of them involve detailed and specialized knowledge that not many possess. Most of them are copiously slathered with a predilection for a particular viewpoint. And sadly, a lot of the debate is framed in well-worn rhetorical stunts that have to be pared away before real discovery can occur. (Sadly one of those stunts is begging for quarter on emotional grounds—complaining about being picked on, etc.)
But I did show up with a lack of patience from a mismatch of expectations. If I could do this over - I'd be nicer from the onset. So please accept my apologies now.
Of course. It's not hard to get off on the wrong foot when—as I said—the very nature of the engagement is adversarial. I learn from my lawyer friends. No matter how enthusiastic or ruthless the litigants appear in court, outside of court they have to maintain cordial working relationships.
Does it make more sense now why I'm taking the thrust estimates step by step? Part of it is to disarm one rhetorical tactic I've seen you use where you place a heavy burden of proof on others, but then indicate a relatively insincere interest by sidestepping the result without materially engaging with it. That trick of always keeping the ball in someone else's court makes it seem like one side of the debate is always flailing or failing and therefore has the weaker position. Ironically the tactic usually masks a lack of rigor or evidence on the other side. By getting you to engage and contribute to the overall process, I'm investing you in it. That makes it harder for you later to say, "Yes, that's good but..." and then move on to some other question. Yes, this is a trick I learned from lawyers who have to cross-examine hostile witnesses. Yes, I'm telling you about it because my aim in using it is simply to strip away the rhetoric and look at the question honestly, not to trap you into losing a court case.
And part is to lead you see
on your own any assumptions and misconceptions you may not consciously be aware of, or which you've borrowed from ill-informed conspiracy sources. I can't change your mind. But I can help you see reasons why you might want to change your own mind. If I just come at you with piss and vinegar, you'll shut down and dig in as we've seen you do. But if, for example, I get you to see that your sources may be giving you a simplistic view of the problem, then in most people this triggers a part of their brain that honestly wants to know more. We win not so much when we get the right answer, but when we get an answer for the right reasons.
