3 ms·

You sound mildly anti-intellectual. Also, it's called "dereferencing".

jasonkester 17y ago
I hope not. I'm all about learning, provided it's useful and not just a bunch of definitions for common knowledge. And if I'm ever back in 1995, I'll ask that guy if that's what he meant by "deferencing." :)
- jerf 17y ago
  "I'm all about learning..." ... I just don't want other people to be doing it on my Internet, so I'm going to complain when I see others doing it. Seriously, what do you think you're adding to this conversation? That there are people who think they don't need that there fancy book learnins' is not news.
  - jasonkester 17y ago
    Yikes, why the attack? We're commenting on an article that somebody posted. I found it boring and said as much. That's all that has transpired here.
    - derefr 17y ago
      I saw an article here a few months ago, about how there were three kinds of people—people who weren't really "interested" in anything per se; people who had one Thing that they spent all their time thinking about; and people who were interested in everything, and would readily consume information about any topic. Entrepreneurs tend to be the third type; that is one of the main reasons HN was renamed from its original title of "Startup News." (The term "Hacker" is, in usage, 99% similar to "someone who wants to know everything about everything, just for the sake of it.") Basically, the community is trying to reject you—a person who has explicitly stated that they are not of the third type—like a foreign body.
      - marshallp 17y ago
        "Basically, the community is trying to reject you—a person who has explicitly stated that they are not of the third type—like a foreign body." You're being a hypocrite by doing that, if you're in third type, where you're interested in everything, you should be intereseted in a multiplicity of viewpoints as well.
        drunkpotato 17y ago
        Horsehockey. You can learn about a viewpoint and then reject it. Being interested in everything doesn't mean you have to give every idea equal weight. "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that!" -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
      - jasonkester 17y ago
        I agree with your 3 groups, but if you read my post history you'll see that I'm firmly in the 3rd camp. Anything related to building and growing a tech startup gets my full attention here. As I stated in my first post on this thread, this article seems to not contain anything of value to a person building and growing an entrepreneurial startup. If I had to bet, it was the anti-anti-intellectual crowd doing the rejecting here, on the assumption that I don't like knowledge.
        derefr 17y ago
        Er, no—having dispersed interests focused around a central subject, like running a startup, is the second group. The point is that the people in the third group don't care that "this article seems to not contain anything of value to a person building and growing an entrepreneurial startup", because startups are just one of their (unlimited) interests.
- derefr 17y ago
  > a bunch of definitions for common knowledge In order to create new ideas, you must play with the ones that exist and argue about how they fit together. In order to do that, you must rigorously and precisely define the terms you're working with. Otherwise, when you, for example, design a new programming language, you'll just end up inventing your own terminology for your business objects (i.e. closures, dereferencing expressions, A-Lists, etc.) and no one will be able to work with the results.

I hope not. I'm all about learning, provided it's useful and not just a bunch of definitions for common knowledge. And if I'm ever back in 1995, I'll ask that guy if that's what he meant by "deferencing." :)

jerf 17y ago
"I'm all about learning..." ... I just don't want other people to be doing it on my Internet, so I'm going to complain when I see others doing it. Seriously, what do you think you're adding to this conversation? That there are people who think they don't need that there fancy book learnins' is not news.
- jasonkester 17y ago
  Yikes, why the attack? We're commenting on an article that somebody posted. I found it boring and said as much. That's all that has transpired here.
  - derefr 17y ago
    I saw an article here a few months ago, about how there were three kinds of people—people who weren't really "interested" in anything per se; people who had one Thing that they spent all their time thinking about; and people who were interested in everything, and would readily consume information about any topic. Entrepreneurs tend to be the third type; that is one of the main reasons HN was renamed from its original title of "Startup News." (The term "Hacker" is, in usage, 99% similar to "someone who wants to know everything about everything, just for the sake of it.") Basically, the community is trying to reject you—a person who has explicitly stated that they are not of the third type—like a foreign body.
    - marshallp 17y ago
      "Basically, the community is trying to reject you—a person who has explicitly stated that they are not of the third type—like a foreign body." You're being a hypocrite by doing that, if you're in third type, where you're interested in everything, you should be intereseted in a multiplicity of viewpoints as well.
      - drunkpotato 17y ago
        Horsehockey. You can learn about a viewpoint and then reject it. Being interested in everything doesn't mean you have to give every idea equal weight. "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that!" -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
    - jasonkester 17y ago
      I agree with your 3 groups, but if you read my post history you'll see that I'm firmly in the 3rd camp. Anything related to building and growing a tech startup gets my full attention here. As I stated in my first post on this thread, this article seems to not contain anything of value to a person building and growing an entrepreneurial startup. If I had to bet, it was the anti-anti-intellectual crowd doing the rejecting here, on the assumption that I don't like knowledge.
      - derefr 17y ago
        Er, no—having dispersed interests focused around a central subject, like running a startup, is the second group. The point is that the people in the third group don't care that "this article seems to not contain anything of value to a person building and growing an entrepreneurial startup", because startups are just one of their (unlimited) interests.
derefr 17y ago
> a bunch of definitions for common knowledge In order to create new ideas, you must play with the ones that exist and argue about how they fit together. In order to do that, you must rigorously and precisely define the terms you're working with. Otherwise, when you, for example, design a new programming language, you'll just end up inventing your own terminology for your business objects (i.e. closures, dereferencing expressions, A-Lists, etc.) and no one will be able to work with the results.