9 ms·

Ok, this is a fantastic piece that says a lot of useful and thoughtful things, some of them critical about the priorities of the SF startup scene. And what are

Ok, this is a fantastic piece that says a lot of useful and thoughtful things, some of them critical about the priorities of the SF startup scene. And what are a nontrivial portion of the HN comments doing? Complaining that he was unfair to Elon freaking Musk!! This is exactly the sort of techno-douchebaggery that the author is writing about, so way to prove his point, nimrods. The one redeeming quality of such comments is that they fall into the category of "HN comments that are best read in Comic Book Guy voice", and when read that way they're good for a chuckle.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
It's easier to call out the author on a nitpick than to thoughtfully refute his arguments for the sake of racking up more imaginary internet points.
- tedks 11y ago
  And the imaginary internet points incentive system HN uses implicitly incentivizes those posts. One way to stop this would be to have people who post low-value high-expected-karma-yield posts get randomly banned. This would function as a variable punishment and should be quite effective at training HN users.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Ehhh I think HN already directs too much of the discourse. I understand the intent of minimum karma downvoting, for example, but I think that encourages elitism, because if you have to be validated with 500 karma before you can downvote, then the implication is that you're in a class of people that's better than others and you don't feel you have to explain yourself. EDIT: like how this comment is being silently downvoted now. I would like to think that the HN community has a wicked sense of humor.
    - collyw 11y ago
      Digg started off well but went downhill very rapidly without that "elitism".
    - johnmaguire2013 11y ago
      Downvoting of this comment only makes sense to me if someone disagrees with you. And on that note, is that what downvoting on HN is for? Other link aggregators typically say downvoting isn't for disagreements; that's what commenting is for.
      - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        I've only downvoted someone once, and that was for a snarky, 5-word top-level comment that did nothing to expand the conversation - the kind of downvote that is exempt from explanation. But then there are people who silently disagree via downvote. To that I ask what the purpose must be. "I think you're wrong" - How? Why? Is it my tone? Lack of evidence? To me, downvoting without explaining is just a smug way to feel less insecure about one's own opinions without having to stand up for anything.
        kbenson 11y ago
        I find that downvotes generally account for well below 10% of my voting, and I use them mostly to denote needed correction in tone or presentation, or repeated endorsement of a "fact" without reference after it's been asked for. Even then, I'll only do so after leaving a comment or confirming someone else has a comment that covers my reasoning for downvoting. Without some explanation, it's far to easy to assume downvotes are due to disagreement on what is all to often a subjective item, which doesn't really help the discussion at all. A Poll on people's downvoting behavior would be interesting, but as it would be self-reporting and subjective, the results would be next to meaningless if mundane.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    "Worst. HN. Suggestion. Ever."
    - tedks 11y ago
      This is a perfect example of a comment that should have maybe a 1/100 chance of getting someone banned. 1. It contributes nothing. 2. It's a pop culture reference. 3. It comes from an HN brand that can be reliably expected to farm karma basically anywhere via name recognition alone.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Punishing people for gaming the system as it's intended to be gamed would be counterproductive, because the karma system itself is based on flawed assumptions. The expectation here is that high karma indicates high intellectual quality, but that's demonstrably false. It doesn't do what it's intended to do and even detracts from the value of discussion in some places. A better way to improve content quality would be to stop using karma altogether, but I understand that's deeply baked into the culture, and probably not likely. Removing the visibility of karma scores might be an adequate compromise. Upvoting, downvoting and sorting would work perfectly fine without the temptation of a score. Hacker News has enough passive aggressive attempts at operant conditioning as it is - the fading of text posts to discourage "blogging" is one egregious example. If you don't want people to farm karma, get rid of karma. If you want to expect more quality and better engagement from users, treat them like people and not like mice in a Skinner box.
    - nine_k 11y ago
      Karma is the worst known proxy to expectations of reasonable behavior, except for all other proxies that have been tried. It's basically a linear prediction model: someone who behaved reasonably in the past is expected to continue doing so. This is not always true, of course, but I beg anyone suggest a more precise model that can be realistically implemented. Another purpose of karma is preventing a bot from registering 1000 accounts and using them immediatley for insistent mass downvoting. Of course, one can build rings of bot accounts that upvote each other to gain karma before operation, but this takes much more determination and skill than an internet hooligan usually possesses.
      - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        When I was new to HN I thought downvoting just didn't exist here, and I actually preferred that. Arguments that are liked get bubbled up, while inflammatory comments get ignored or slapped down by reasonable people.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Of course, one can build rings of bot accounts that upvote each other to gain karma before operation, but this takes much more determination and skill than an internet hooligan usually possesses. Also, ISTR mentions that HN employs voting ring detectors, and punishes detected voting rings to avoid exactly this phenomenon. So, its not just the passive difficulty that is an issue with this approach, there is active opposition.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Those posts can serve as a jumping-off point for thoughtful discussion.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    Research says that infrequent and severe punishment results in an increase of the punishable behavior; it's quick, clear and consistent, but not severe, punishment that actually curbs the punishable behavior. I wish downvotes here could be only cast with a comment explaining the reason, to improve clarity.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      I'm in huge agreement. Even if it's a drop-down to select off topic, abusive, etc, it would be so much better than the smug silence of an unexplained downvote.
    - tedks 11y ago
      That's certainly true for criminology, but I'm talking about operant conditioning. What we want is the opposite of a slot machine.
- macca321 11y ago
  " in confrontation with entities that we encounter for the first time or do not have enough appreciation of their complexity, we approach from the most accessible angle we can understand. " http://byterot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/rule-of-most-accessible-and-how-it-can-make-you-feel-better.html http://byterot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/rule-of-most-accessibl...
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> And what are a nontrivial portion of the HN comments doing? Complaining that he was unfair to Elon freaking Musk!! Only if "nontrivial" means "two out of a freakin' lot". Also complains are perfectly warranted. While 'idlewords has (as usual) a lot of good points in his text, that Musk quote was straight dishonest.
rfrey 11y ago
Thanks, your comment led me to spend one of my two-article-limit on this and I'm glad, this once, I didn't trust the comments. It's like some people scanned the article, paused at the picture of Elon Musk, then read the last two sentences. It's a very deep essay.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Scan the comments then, too. GP's assertion is false and it's sad that it stays as a top post right now.
lmm 11y ago
You do realise that your own comment is worse than those you're complaining about? Be civil, be constructive; if you feel like particular comments are unhelpful, suggest improvements or downvote them. Don't just call them names.
joshstrange 11y ago
Wow.... ONE, that's right ONE top level comment calls out this fact. I'll fully admit it's the one thing that annoyed me about this, I agree with the rest but they are taking that quote completely out of context and it more of a joke than anything on a late night TV show.... So I'm not sure where 1 == nontrivial portion of HN comments.... I agree with all of the author's points and quite enjoyed the read-through. The ONLY thing I took issue with was the Musk comment and even then it was just annoying, it's not like I'm going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm getting really annoyed by these top-rated comments saying some BS like "Everyone is complaining about X" then I look for those complaints and there are 1-2....
kbenson 11y ago
Because he is unfair to the the people he singles out, just to make a point. The tone shifts at that point from "get your shit together, prove you can fix some problems at a smaller level before moving to world issues" to caricaturing other people trying to do good in the world for not following his specific desired future, as if everyone needs to be focused on the same thing. Musk is working towards something he believes has the capability to mitigate human extinction events. Whether you think that's likely or not, reducing that to "he plans detonate nuclear weapons on Mars" just so you can call it out is not exactly an above-board argument. Maris wants to keep people alive longer, possibly indefinitely. By implying only billionaires will be able to do this, he's immediately separated Maris' goals from your own (unless you are a billionaire), and set this up as useless investment that won't help you. Let's not discount that his goal is actually to save lives. I generally love the different talks by Maciej Cegłowski, but this one has an unneeded negative turn at the end. To put this in perspective, we can use the same tactics against this talk. In 2012 38 million people died of noncommunicable diseases, and another almost 13 million died of communicable diseases[1], and this guy is worried about seeing shit on the streets of San Francisco? Seriously? Is that fair to his argument? I don't think so, but it's exactly what he did to others in his talk. 1: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.ht...
mbubb 11y ago
True and sometimes the value of a piece is the fact that you can get something of value and learn from it even if you vehemently disagree with points made or conclusions. Nietsche's point in the beginning of the "use and Abuse of History": “Moreover, I hate everything that only instructs me without increasing or immediately stimulating my own activity.” These words of Goethe's, a boldly expressed ceterum censeo, provide an appropriate beginning for our observations on the worth and worthlessness of history. The great thing about a presentation like this is that it burst one of the may filter bubbles I walk around in... Oh and also it is n't Powerpoint.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

It's easier to call out the author on a nitpick than to thoughtfully refute his arguments for the sake of racking up more imaginary internet points.

tedks 11y ago
And the imaginary internet points incentive system HN uses implicitly incentivizes those posts. One way to stop this would be to have people who post low-value high-expected-karma-yield posts get randomly banned. This would function as a variable punishment and should be quite effective at training HN users.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Ehhh I think HN already directs too much of the discourse. I understand the intent of minimum karma downvoting, for example, but I think that encourages elitism, because if you have to be validated with 500 karma before you can downvote, then the implication is that you're in a class of people that's better than others and you don't feel you have to explain yourself. EDIT: like how this comment is being silently downvoted now. I would like to think that the HN community has a wicked sense of humor.
  - collyw 11y ago
    Digg started off well but went downhill very rapidly without that "elitism".
  - johnmaguire2013 11y ago
    Downvoting of this comment only makes sense to me if someone disagrees with you. And on that note, is that what downvoting on HN is for? Other link aggregators typically say downvoting isn't for disagreements; that's what commenting is for.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      I've only downvoted someone once, and that was for a snarky, 5-word top-level comment that did nothing to expand the conversation - the kind of downvote that is exempt from explanation. But then there are people who silently disagree via downvote. To that I ask what the purpose must be. "I think you're wrong" - How? Why? Is it my tone? Lack of evidence? To me, downvoting without explaining is just a smug way to feel less insecure about one's own opinions without having to stand up for anything.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        I find that downvotes generally account for well below 10% of my voting, and I use them mostly to denote needed correction in tone or presentation, or repeated endorsement of a "fact" without reference after it's been asked for. Even then, I'll only do so after leaving a comment or confirming someone else has a comment that covers my reasoning for downvoting. Without some explanation, it's far to easy to assume downvotes are due to disagreement on what is all to often a subjective item, which doesn't really help the discussion at all. A Poll on people's downvoting behavior would be interesting, but as it would be self-reporting and subjective, the results would be next to meaningless if mundane.
- tptacek 11y ago
  "Worst. HN. Suggestion. Ever."
  - tedks 11y ago
    This is a perfect example of a comment that should have maybe a 1/100 chance of getting someone banned. 1. It contributes nothing. 2. It's a pop culture reference. 3. It comes from an HN brand that can be reliably expected to farm karma basically anywhere via name recognition alone.
- krapp 11y ago
  Punishing people for gaming the system as it's intended to be gamed would be counterproductive, because the karma system itself is based on flawed assumptions. The expectation here is that high karma indicates high intellectual quality, but that's demonstrably false. It doesn't do what it's intended to do and even detracts from the value of discussion in some places. A better way to improve content quality would be to stop using karma altogether, but I understand that's deeply baked into the culture, and probably not likely. Removing the visibility of karma scores might be an adequate compromise. Upvoting, downvoting and sorting would work perfectly fine without the temptation of a score. Hacker News has enough passive aggressive attempts at operant conditioning as it is - the fading of text posts to discourage "blogging" is one egregious example. If you don't want people to farm karma, get rid of karma. If you want to expect more quality and better engagement from users, treat them like people and not like mice in a Skinner box.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    Karma is the worst known proxy to expectations of reasonable behavior, except for all other proxies that have been tried. It's basically a linear prediction model: someone who behaved reasonably in the past is expected to continue doing so. This is not always true, of course, but I beg anyone suggest a more precise model that can be realistically implemented. Another purpose of karma is preventing a bot from registering 1000 accounts and using them immediatley for insistent mass downvoting. Of course, one can build rings of bot accounts that upvote each other to gain karma before operation, but this takes much more determination and skill than an internet hooligan usually possesses.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      When I was new to HN I thought downvoting just didn't exist here, and I actually preferred that. Arguments that are liked get bubbled up, while inflammatory comments get ignored or slapped down by reasonable people.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Of course, one can build rings of bot accounts that upvote each other to gain karma before operation, but this takes much more determination and skill than an internet hooligan usually possesses. Also, ISTR mentions that HN employs voting ring detectors, and punishes detected voting rings to avoid exactly this phenomenon. So, its not just the passive difficulty that is an issue with this approach, there is active opposition.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Those posts can serve as a jumping-off point for thoughtful discussion.
- nine_k 11y ago
  Research says that infrequent and severe punishment results in an increase of the punishable behavior; it's quick, clear and consistent, but not severe, punishment that actually curbs the punishable behavior. I wish downvotes here could be only cast with a comment explaining the reason, to improve clarity.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I'm in huge agreement. Even if it's a drop-down to select off topic, abusive, etc, it would be so much better than the smug silence of an unexplained downvote.
  - tedks 11y ago
    That's certainly true for criminology, but I'm talking about operant conditioning. What we want is the opposite of a slot machine.
macca321 11y ago
" in confrontation with entities that we encounter for the first time or do not have enough appreciation of their complexity, we approach from the most accessible angle we can understand. " http://byterot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/rule-of-most-accessible-and-how-it-can-make-you-feel-better.html http://byterot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/rule-of-most-accessibl...

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> And what are a nontrivial portion of the HN comments doing? Complaining that he was unfair to Elon freaking Musk!! Only if "nontrivial" means "two out of a freakin' lot". Also complains are perfectly warranted. While 'idlewords has (as usual) a lot of good points in his text, that Musk quote was straight dishonest.

rfrey 11y ago

Thanks, your comment led me to spend one of my two-article-limit on this and I'm glad, this once, I didn't trust the comments. It's like some people scanned the article, paused at the picture of Elon Musk, then read the last two sentences. It's a very deep essay.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Scan the comments then, too. GP's assertion is false and it's sad that it stays as a top post right now.

lmm 11y ago

You do realise that your own comment is worse than those you're complaining about? Be civil, be constructive; if you feel like particular comments are unhelpful, suggest improvements or downvote them. Don't just call them names.

joshstrange 11y ago

Wow.... ONE, that's right ONE top level comment calls out this fact. I'll fully admit it's the one thing that annoyed me about this, I agree with the rest but they are taking that quote completely out of context and it more of a joke than anything on a late night TV show.... So I'm not sure where 1 == nontrivial portion of HN comments.... I agree with all of the author's points and quite enjoyed the read-through. The ONLY thing I took issue with was the Musk comment and even then it was just annoying, it's not like I'm going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm getting really annoyed by these top-rated comments saying some BS like "Everyone is complaining about X" then I look for those complaints and there are 1-2....

kbenson 11y ago

Because he is unfair to the the people he singles out, just to make a point. The tone shifts at that point from "get your shit together, prove you can fix some problems at a smaller level before moving to world issues" to caricaturing other people trying to do good in the world for not following his specific desired future, as if everyone needs to be focused on the same thing. Musk is working towards something he believes has the capability to mitigate human extinction events. Whether you think that's likely or not, reducing that to "he plans detonate nuclear weapons on Mars" just so you can call it out is not exactly an above-board argument. Maris wants to keep people alive longer, possibly indefinitely. By implying only billionaires will be able to do this, he's immediately separated Maris' goals from your own (unless you are a billionaire), and set this up as useless investment that won't help you. Let's not discount that his goal is actually to save lives. I generally love the different talks by Maciej Cegłowski, but this one has an unneeded negative turn at the end. To put this in perspective, we can use the same tactics against this talk. In 2012 38 million people died of noncommunicable diseases, and another almost 13 million died of communicable diseases[1], and this guy is worried about seeing shit on the streets of San Francisco? Seriously? Is that fair to his argument? I don't think so, but it's exactly what he did to others in his talk. 1: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.ht...

mbubb 11y ago

True and sometimes the value of a piece is the fact that you can get something of value and learn from it even if you vehemently disagree with points made or conclusions. Nietsche's point in the beginning of the "use and Abuse of History": “Moreover, I hate everything that only instructs me without increasing or immediately stimulating my own activity.” These words of Goethe's, a boldly expressed ceterum censeo, provide an appropriate beginning for our observations on the worth and worthlessness of history. The great thing about a presentation like this is that it burst one of the may filter bubbles I walk around in... Oh and also it is n't Powerpoint.