It's Bulverism because first you need to defend and establish that your proposition is true before you can start explaining "why" it is true.
At the very least the title is clear Bulverism.
Admittedly, I did enjoy the article, even if I was initially a bit predisposed not to from the title. And I think the quote "if you hire a rust evangelist to choose your programming language, you've already chosen rust" is very insightful. But the author still goes into zero depth to asses to what extent rationality of language choice is a widespread problem, as opposed to isolated cases they've seen during their career.
Which is ironic given that their thesis is that people go into topics emotionally without weighing them factually against the ground truth.
He established his proposition in the opening paragraphs -- the ones that most HN commentators have seized up and not even noticed the actual argument and discussion.
AFAICS you don't seem to have even noticed the initial example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
Hardly, no.
The entire point of the article is pointing out an entirely different cognitive fallacy.
It's Bulverism because first you need to defend and establish that your proposition is true before you can start explaining "why" it is true.
At the very least the title is clear Bulverism.
Admittedly, I did enjoy the article, even if I was initially a bit predisposed not to from the title. And I think the quote "if you hire a rust evangelist to choose your programming language, you've already chosen rust" is very insightful. But the author still goes into zero depth to asses to what extent rationality of language choice is a widespread problem, as opposed to isolated cases they've seen during their career.
Which is ironic given that their thesis is that people go into topics emotionally without weighing them factually against the ground truth.
He established his proposition in the opening paragraphs -- the ones that most HN commentators have seized up and not even noticed the actual argument and discussion.
AFAICS you don't seem to have even noticed the initial example.