Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1n9kr7 wrote

Reply to comment by OakenGreen in Shiva is back and begging for a job! by somegridplayer

If you Google who invented email his name comes up. It’s between him and some guy that worked for the govt so who knows lol

−122

OakenGreen t1_j1na81b wrote

Google says Ray Tomlinson invented email in 1971, but this dude disputes that claim by saying he invented it in the late 70s. Looking into the stories it does seem that shiva developed his own email system in the late 70s but the credit goes to Ray Tomlinson since he did it first.

Considering it’s Shiva vs the world on this argument, I’m gonna go ahead and call the swindler a swindler.

91

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1nbb04 wrote

Oh yeah it changed. It used to say Shivva

−80

MrRileyJr t1_j1nr8pt wrote

Was your source wikipedia?

21

Arctucrus t1_j1q74vu wrote

Don't dunk on Wikipedia; It's not what it used to be. They've got their shit together more now than before. It's a solid source.

4

MrRileyJr t1_j1q9jau wrote

The joke there is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but facts can't be.

It's an actual fact that email was invented in 1971 (he was only 8) and Shiva claims to have invented it in 1979. Even if there was one result saying Shiva invented email there would be thousands saying Ray Tomlinson did. Kinda hard to miss that, unless intentionally.

Wikipedia has always been a good resource....if you follow up on their sources of information. It isn't a source, but it is a very solid starting point.

4

Arctucrus t1_j1sbsel wrote

I get the joke; I'm saying it doesn't really make sense.

> The joke there is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but facts can't be.

This is strictly true, but I mean... You can't just transfer facts to others, you have to communicate them, through some sort of medium. Facts can't change, but they can be presented dishonestly via crafty use of the medium used to communicate them. So... saying "Facts can't be edited by anyone," I mean, you're missing the point. That facts can't be edited is irrelevant; We're discussing the quality of fact-communicating mediums.

And when it comes to Wikipedia, I reiterate; It's not what it used to be. Especially with highly-trafficked subjects, it itself tends to be pretty accurate. Yes it can be edited by anyone but that alone doesn't make something a poor resource -- If anything, present-day Wikipedia is a great example of that. Since its early days it's developed a robust infrastructure of guidelines, systems, and more, to quickly identify bad actors and correct misleading information. All of that is upheld by a humongous global network of volunteers, all of whom adhere to and some of whom even helped develop that infrastructure. It's much more reliable than it was 10 or 15 years ago; This pervasive and common idea that essentially "Wikipedia is a laughingstock and completely unreliable resource because it can be edited by anyone" is pretty outdated now.

So, you explain your joke to me, and now here I'm explaining my point: Your joke's punch line relies on outdated information to uphold its logic. It does not make sense anymore.

> Wikipedia has always been a good resource....if you follow up on their sources of information. It isn't a source, but it is a very solid starting point.

This also isn't a counterargument to my points because you're treating Wikipedia like it's the only source like that or like there's something inherent about Wikipedia that they could do better that makes it lower quality. That isn't the case either; What you're referring to is literally the case with all secondary and especially tertiary sources of information, and that's just the nature of those kinds of sources. That's nothing to dunk Wikipedia on specifically, that's just how the world works.

It's not all that dissimilar to the age old adage "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will spend its life believing it is stupid." If you judge secondary and tertiary sources (either specifically and by name like Wikipedia OR in general) for requiring their consumers to treat them like a starting point and to follow up on their sources of information, you're rigging the game against them from the beginning. That's their nature. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.

> It's an actual fact that email was invented in 1971 (he was only 8) and Shiva claims to have invented it in 1979. Even if there was one result saying Shiva invented email there would be thousands saying Ray Tomlinson did. Kinda hard to miss that, unless intentionally.

None of this is relevant to our specific little dialogue in this little corner of this thread. Thanks though, I didn't have all the details on this timeline, so I appreciate having it clearer now!

0

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1o9b0h wrote

So snarky…google search legit used to populate his name…I really don’t care who invented email

−32

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1o95xa wrote

Lol so many downvotes…Literally if you googled who invented email before it would say his name… I have no skin in the game here … weird bunch of ppl

−17

Arctucrus t1_j1q7hcu wrote

> Literally if you googled who invented email before it would say his name

Google search results is far from the final arbiter, or any kind of arbiter, on truthful information. Google's function isn't to answer questions; It's to spit back webpages that best match the submitted query. If there's shittons of websites that say Shiva invented e-mail, even if it's wrong, and especially if one or multiple paid Google to come out at the top of search results, then, yeah, Google's gonna tell you Shiva invented e-mail. Even though it's completely wrong.

Don't take Google seriously. Ever. Check its sources. Determine there whether or not you take something seriously.

4

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1qcmz3 wrote

Obviously—my post wasn’t to say that it was iron clad—just interesting that it did in fact used to say that. I know this because when he did the whole real vs fake Indian campaign i looked into him and then saw his claim abt inventing email then did a Google search and his name popped up. In any case, spent enough time on this topic

0

Arctucrus t1_j1sgvpw wrote

You're missing the point.

> If you Google who invented email his name comes up. It’s between him and some guy that worked for the govt so who knows lol

> interesting that it did in fact used to say that

You're repeatedly presenting it as if it means something that Google displayed text stating Shiva invented e-mail. "It's between him and some guy," "so who knows," "interesting that it did in fact used to say that" -- All these sentences put validating weight on the fact that Google displayed text to you stating that Shiva invented e-mail. No validating weight exists. There is nothing of value to be taken simply from Google displaying that text, because that is not Google's function. Not to mention that Google these days tailors its results to each user, but I digress.

I could get Google to display text stating literally the most batshit insane thing with a few bucks and a website up that already says that for Google just to quote. Anyone could. Google's function is to put a bunch of books on the table for you to pick up and read and judge for yourself, not to guarantee that the books it's giving you are any good. That's your job.

"It's between him and some guy" puts Shiva's claim on the same level as actual fact. That does not reflect reality.

"So who knows" implies there's no way to know for sure because Google said both, implying Google placing two names on equal level means they are on equal level. There is a way to know for sure, even though Google said both and put both names on equal level, because Google's function as a tool isn't to tell anyone what is certain.

"Interesting that it did in fact used to say that" I mean, sure, as interesting as literally anything else popping up as a search result for any given query ever. Again you're signaling that specifically as interesting, which says there's something special or unusual about Google saying Shiva invented e-mail. In turn you're saying that there's something of value to be deduced specifically from Google once having stated that Shiva invented e-mail. There absolutely is not; Again, you're just fundamentally misunderstanding the tool's function. That's the point.

2

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1sh9sy wrote

Dude you spent way too much time analyzing this. Nobody has time to read this

0

Arctucrus t1_j1shitb wrote

Lol

I spent a minute and a half explaining a point you're repeatedly missing. I don't give a shit if you don't have the time to read it, although it's weird that you have the time to reply anyways.

Regardless, says more about you than me if you repeatedly miss a point, someone takes a little time to explain it to you as a favor, and you judge them for it. 🤷 I'm good with that.

See ya bud, best wishes to you! Happy holidays... lol.

2

Ilikereddit15 t1_j1slqmk wrote

You come off as an self-esteemed autodidact who missed my point entirely…that it’s between shivva and some guy in the government…implying — you can’t trust either…so who didn’t get it? Your whole thesis was wrong. Thanks for helping but it looks like I had to help you

2

Arctucrus t1_j1smr3t wrote

Alright, hold on then.

> that it’s between shivva and some guy in the government…implying — you can’t trust either

You're right, I absolutely didn't get that. Genuinely, can you explain your point then please?

> You come off as an self-esteemed autodidact

You've humbled me... maybe. 😅😝 For a lot of really complex reasons related to life's challenges, I am a bit of an autodidact. If I may, I'd like to know what about me and my comments enabled you to deduce that. This surprised me, but I want to know and understand. You have no obligation to, but I would appreciate any help with that because it seems you're a person in a position to help me with it, and you've actually identified that you are haha.

2