Issendai

> The quick answer is that Wayland, while it has certain design provisions for privacy and security, doesn't really enforce anything on its own, it's just a set of protocols that applications can use to talk to a display server. The display server is free to do whatever it wants.

I love having to detect at runtime the compositor I'm using (and its version) and have bespoke code paths to work around their various bugs and omissions.

Definitely a recipe for reliable, usable, maintainable software.

> Unfortunately this is poorly understood due to it being generally poorly explained.

This reads like a "missing missing reason"[1]. People do understand it, and they explain why it's a dealbreaker. Wayland has had a decade and a half to grow some consensus and make these very basic things that work under X11 work. Instead of doing that, they're now relying on the main distributions just giving up on (the hardware) X11 servers instead of fixing this. I don't care if only one or two compositors that I don't run support the one thing that I need. That doesn't help me because those compositors don't implement other functionality I need. Having a stable, agreed upon, universally consistently implemented base of functionality that application developers and toolkits can rely on is a good thing.

This is a complete clusterfuck, and that's why there's user feedback. Trying to frame it as "people just don't understand" isn't productive. They do, and their criticisms have some…

I've been in the same position quite a lot recently, so I thought I'd add my 5c. There are a few conclusions I've come to that depend on the person doing this:

1. Gaslighting - definitely possible, though not the first assumption you should make.

2. The person very badly doesn't want it to be true. Usually this is because they're on a tight deadline and/or may not be accustomed to working in a team (who may not share their own deadline).

3. The person doesn't understand your area, and doesn't want to. Their existing (less complete) understanding says that it should work this way. You are therefore the incompetent one, not them.

(On #1, you could be justified in making that conclusion first if your experience resonates strongly with this - highly recommended reading - https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html)

(On #3 - working in an area your boss('s boss's boss, etc) has little or no respect for is hard. This is the basis for the "do you see engineering as a cost centre or value centre?" question when going for interviews.)

Coincidentally with a sibling comment, I'm reading How to Win Friends and Influence People at the moment, and I concur: you can't convince someone they're wrong. Arguing is almost never the best course of action (in any situation).

Some solutions I've found that work sometimes (to address the symptoms at least) -

- Ask them to try it for themselves. Let them use the app / make the request / build the component / create the logical…

You can find the same logic among a lot of extremists. My take is that they start with an outcome they're excited about and reason toward it, choosing facts to fit. For those who have dealt with narcissists and abusers, it's common there, too.

For those who haven't seen it up close but want to understand it, I strongly recommend this long dive into the forums for "estranged parents": http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/

The gist is that plenty of kids with narcissistic or abusive parents grow up and eventually cut off contact with their parents. For some, I'm sure, this forces a reckoning: they really look at what they've done and try to get better. But many do what they've done their whole lives: find ways to explain why they are still right.

Dashiell Hammett in The Thin Man gives a good description of what it's like dealing with people like this: "Most people [...] get discouraged after you’ve caught them in the third or fourth straight lie and fall back on either truth or silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying and you’ve got to be careful or you’ll find yourself believing her, not because she seems to be telling the truth, but simply because you’re tired of disbelieving her." A description more familiar to people these days, I'm sure.

The real nugget of truth is found a quarter of the way into the article.

> I’m not trying to hurt her; therefore, she shouldn’t feel hurt.

The author correctly identified the underlying dysfunctional belief[1], but fails to address it head on. Instead he finds ways to thematically "care more".

> I could have communicated my love and respect for her by not leaving tiny reminders for her each day that she wasn’t considered.

While, not untrue, without addressing the root-cause ie: the dysfunctional belief, there will continue to be an underlying friction between the internally held belief and the behaviors he wants to perform. This can work in the short-term, but only by confronting the dysfunctional belief can a long-term change be made[2]. Presumably there were many other manifestations of his dysfunctional belief in his marriage that were not listed but which played out in similar ways.

1. From this list of dysfunctional beliefs apply to more than only parent-child relationships http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/dysfunctional-beliefs.html

2. Based on only the information available in the article. Inferences based on a limited amount of information are always subject to what the author reveals and no more.

This literally reads like I would describe my parents. Dot for dot, it's same reaction to the same statements that I made to my parents.

What really enlighten me, however, is reading this site: http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/index.html

This is about the world of estranged parent's forums, how they react, how they write about their children when they don't want to contact them, or when they make it clear why they treat them such way.

If you care enough to learn about this behavior more (although, I've to admit, it's hard to accept what is said there on the site), I strongly recommend giving a read of this site, it takes about one/two evenings to go through all the stories there.

Tl;dr is that some people are just wired this way, it's like they literally have a blockage somewhere in their mind, that doesn't allow them to express themselves any other way, such as more compassionate people do it. Once you learn that, talking with them becomes easier once you recognize the patterns.

There is a solid system that I have seen work quite well in the workplace and a few of my colleagues relationships.

https://issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html

Use demographics to your advantage.

An obvious example: Chinese men have to clear a very high bar to be marriage material because of the shortage of women. Take advantage of this. You could start learning a martial art popular in China, then do an extended trip over there to “study” that style. That would give you the excuse to meet thousands of men self selected for attractive traits and a setting for in depth interaction several hours a day.

Hire a private researcher like gwern.org to research a source of unfair demographic advantage for you. I think Elisabeth from LessWrong is also available for arbitrary research hire but I don’t remember her website. Maybe someone else can link?