4 ms·

I think there's a fundamental difference between, say [0] (thoughtful, nuanced), and [1] (just plain silly). The initial posts are all worthwhile and interestin

by pfooti 11y ago

I think there's a fundamental difference between, say [0] (thoughtful, nuanced), and [1] (just plain silly). The initial posts are all worthwhile and interesting, with the latter clearly being satire. It would be even funnier if the OP exposed a more robust string-handling library from ruby or python to the javascript runtime in node by way of a native lib binding. [2] is kind of just elitist, "get off my lawn" yelling, which misses the point fundamentally in this problem. There are different flavors of comments on these threads. Some are pretty cogent and thoughtful. Others aren't. A "sky is falling augh, isArray is one line, javascript devs are teh worst" misses the underlying problem of javascript being addressed (interpreter fragmentation, not having a reliable way to test if something is an array on older platforms). I'd argue it doesn't contribute at all to the improvement (metacognitive or otherwise) of any javascript dev, but instead serves to harden people's opinions on one side or another of a mythical line. The difference is whether the goal is to contribute to the discourse or just go for the shallow laughs. It's an important difference, because the former does lead to improvement all around, whereas the latter leads to high-fives and community decay. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352704 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11350651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11350651 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11348798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11348798

pdkl95 11y ago
There is another aspect that is worth considering: when someone is doing something particularly "stupid", this "stupidity" often isn't seen by the actor. Their self analysis can sometimes correct itself over time, but the usual biases can interfere. The point is it is far too easy to fall into really bad habits while blind to just how bad everyone else sees those habits. While I'm speaking about a somewhat more general pattern of behavior, a very closely related phenomena is the "normalization of deviance"[1]. Part of the problem is that without an outside assessment, the actor isn't really working with accurate information. Criticism can be a way of giving that data. Quality "constructive criticism" is great, but the message is sometimes ignored or avoided. In those cases, a harsher criticism - and possibly a bit insulting - is necessary to convey both the severity of the situation and to get the recipients attention. This is where some of what you cal "'get off my lawn' yelling" is about. Sometimes we've seen these mistakes before, and we've tried being patient and nice; when that didn't work, the occasional "get off my lawn" may be appropriate. As others have said, this how a community self-corrects; when someone is being "stupid", they need to know that. They certainly aren't going to change without this necessary information. Now I'll certainly agree that there is a very fine line here, and as long as fallible humans are involved mistakes will be made. I've certainly made mistakes in this area in the past. However, avoiding problems is not the answer, as unfixed small problems tend to become larger problems in the future. [1] http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/12/normalization-of-deviance/ http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/12/normalization-of-devian...

by pfooti 11y ago

pdkl95 11y ago

There is another aspect that is worth considering: when someone is doing something particularly "stupid", this "stupidity" often isn't seen by the actor. Their self analysis can sometimes correct itself over time, but the usual biases can interfere. The point is it is far too easy to fall into really bad habits while blind to just how bad everyone else sees those habits. While I'm speaking about a somewhat more general pattern of behavior, a very closely related phenomena is the "normalization of deviance"[1]. Part of the problem is that without an outside assessment, the actor isn't really working with accurate information. Criticism can be a way of giving that data. Quality "constructive criticism" is great, but the message is sometimes ignored or avoided. In those cases, a harsher criticism - and possibly a bit insulting - is necessary to convey both the severity of the situation and to get the recipients attention. This is where some of what you cal "'get off my lawn' yelling" is about. Sometimes we've seen these mistakes before, and we've tried being patient and nice; when that didn't work, the occasional "get off my lawn" may be appropriate. As others have said, this how a community self-corrects; when someone is being "stupid", they need to know that. They certainly aren't going to change without this necessary information. Now I'll certainly agree that there is a very fine line here, and as long as fallible humans are involved mistakes will be made. I've certainly made mistakes in this area in the past. However, avoiding problems is not the answer, as unfixed small problems tend to become larger problems in the future. [1] http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/12/normalization-of-deviance/ http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/12/normalization-of-devian...