jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
I'm not sure if this is the best terminology, but I found it useful to have a name for the concept at all. I'd like one that was clear to people other than me :)

The idea is, "meta-right" means "the right decision given the information available, which may or may not have been correct omnisciently". Like:

Q. I put the colander in the utensils cupboard, was that right?
A. That was meta-right. [ie. it actually goes in the pan cupboard but I didn't expect you to know that, and thank you for helping tidy up, I'm glad you helped and took sensible guesses]

Q. I gambled on X, but it actually came up Y. Do you think that was meta-right?
A. I'm not sure, do you think you had any way to know, or was X your best guess?

Similarly, "meta-ok" when you ask if something is ok. Eg.

Q. Is it ok I was late home?
A. It was meta-ok.

Meaning, it's ok that you're late home SOMETIMES, and this time was no worse than any other time. But it's not necessarily ok if you're ALWAYS late home.

But is there a better way of describing this?

Date: 2015-06-15 05:41 pm (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
The word you are looking for is, I believe, "reasonable"

It was reasonable to put the colander in the utensils cupboard.
It was reasonable to come home late sometimes, but unreasonable to come home late every time.
It is reasonable to gamble on X if you have a way to predict its likelihood.

Date: 2015-06-15 05:44 pm (UTC)
rysmiel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rysmiel
I would most likely go for "it made sense in context", I think, but "reasonable" works too.

(Also, they are doing weird esoteric stuff with our network at work at the moment, so it's possible IP logging me posting from work may give some odd results for the next bit.)
Edited Date: 2015-06-15 05:45 pm (UTC)

Date: 2015-06-15 05:47 pm (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
I don't log IPs. But I do enjoy knowing about things like that.

How esoteric are we talking? Have things gotten downright occult?

Date: 2015-06-15 05:50 pm (UTC)
rysmiel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rysmiel
Sorry, that latter comment was directed at our host's journal helpfully warning that IPs were being logged on comments here rather than at you.

They sound pretty occult; I do not have enough Sanity Points at the moment to risk taking a closer look.

Date: 2015-06-15 05:57 pm (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
Oooh. I'm suddenly wishing that "Sanity Points" had caught on rather than "Spoons".

Date: 2015-06-16 12:19 am (UTC)
rysmiel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rysmiel
Oh, sorry, I really did not mean that as anything wanting apology from you; it was meant by way as a pre-emptive apology from me in case your dw logging did anything weird in the same way that, for example, Google went weird at work this morning, thought everyone from the entire institution I was working at was the same person and threw multiple captchas on every search any of us did because it thought we had a ridiculously high usage frequency for one address.

I'm totally good if this is not inconveniencing you; can our mutual apologies and so forth cancel out and leave us both OK here ?

Date: 2015-06-16 01:42 am (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
But none of your examples sounds like "AA+++++ Well done" either, so I didn't realise you were going for that! They all sounded like "Well that could have been worse."