3 ms·

I would counter-argue that dry, positive, informational writing is great for Wikipedia but can also be very boring. This blog has a lot of snark and that's what

by yobert 7y ago

I would counter-argue that dry, positive, informational writing is great for Wikipedia but can also be very boring. This blog has a lot of snark and that's what makes digesting the great information so much fun!

_frkl 7y ago
Totally agree, I also enjoy her posts quite a bit!
spectramax 7y ago
So much fun and so little substance. Fun should be sprinkled here and there with a healthy 95% dose of substance. Everything Rachel writes is a convoluted mess that’s impossible to follow.
- spectramax 7y ago
  For the downvoters - I also do not like Paul Graham and Sam Altman - they're the same as Rachel in every way. Little substance, lots of unsubstantiated filler material. To extend this further, I also don't like NewYorker for this reason alone - I don't have time for convoluted novel-like stories that has the important bit buried somewhere in the middle of 6 pages. If I want to read beautiful and creative prose, I need to be in that mindset. Not when discussing Python innards.
cgriswald 7y ago
Sarcasm isn’t difficult, interesting, or particularly creative. I found this particular post very off-putting and not-at-all considerate of my time.
pdpi 7y ago
There's a middle term, and you can avoid dryness with tones other than condescension. While I always read Rachel's posts whenever they come up because they're jam packed with wisdom, I always find them a bit off-putting.
- notyourday 7y ago
  Wisdom is always off-putting at the first glance. That's what makes it wisdom
  - mrmonkeyman 7y ago
    That's not even wrong.
- chillingeffect 7y ago
  if i could put a point on it, it would be the implied entitlement and absence of gratitude. Sure, this architecture is not 100% efficient. But step back for a moment, take a breath and consider the number of human-hours spent to get it where it is today. Consider how many people are busting their humps, many volunteers, to keep improving it. We arw not _owed_ any of this. Just the miracle of elastic server config and multicore processors... Buying into the pessimistic viewpoint is dangerous: When these issues get improved, will we feel grateful and adequate? or will we find new flaws and get snarky about them? Anyway, what i do really like abt this post is it shows the chain of technical details across the call chain. it connects together info on dozens of man pages, etc. I also appreciate how it points out the inefficiency is quite convenient for service providers.
  - eropple 7y ago
    > Consider how many people are busting their humps, many volunteers, to keep improving it. I think criticism about gratitude is strange when the author is pretty clearly coming from the standpoint that it was a bad idea to use this in the first place (and, to be fair and with regards to Python specifically, I tend towards that standpoint myself) that labor begins to look like it's being set on fire. No Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds and all that.
ljm 7y ago
I think she does The Daily WTF better than The Daily WTF sometimes.

by yobert 7y ago

_frkl 7y ago

Totally agree, I also enjoy her posts quite a bit!

spectramax 7y ago

So much fun and so little substance. Fun should be sprinkled here and there with a healthy 95% dose of substance. Everything Rachel writes is a convoluted mess that’s impossible to follow.

spectramax 7y ago
For the downvoters - I also do not like Paul Graham and Sam Altman - they're the same as Rachel in every way. Little substance, lots of unsubstantiated filler material. To extend this further, I also don't like NewYorker for this reason alone - I don't have time for convoluted novel-like stories that has the important bit buried somewhere in the middle of 6 pages. If I want to read beautiful and creative prose, I need to be in that mindset. Not when discussing Python innards.

cgriswald 7y ago

Sarcasm isn’t difficult, interesting, or particularly creative. I found this particular post very off-putting and not-at-all considerate of my time.

pdpi 7y ago

There's a middle term, and you can avoid dryness with tones other than condescension. While I always read Rachel's posts whenever they come up because they're jam packed with wisdom, I always find them a bit off-putting.

notyourday 7y ago
Wisdom is always off-putting at the first glance. That's what makes it wisdom
- mrmonkeyman 7y ago
  That's not even wrong.
chillingeffect 7y ago
if i could put a point on it, it would be the implied entitlement and absence of gratitude. Sure, this architecture is not 100% efficient. But step back for a moment, take a breath and consider the number of human-hours spent to get it where it is today. Consider how many people are busting their humps, many volunteers, to keep improving it. We arw not _owed_ any of this. Just the miracle of elastic server config and multicore processors... Buying into the pessimistic viewpoint is dangerous: When these issues get improved, will we feel grateful and adequate? or will we find new flaws and get snarky about them? Anyway, what i do really like abt this post is it shows the chain of technical details across the call chain. it connects together info on dozens of man pages, etc. I also appreciate how it points out the inefficiency is quite convenient for service providers.
- eropple 7y ago
  > Consider how many people are busting their humps, many volunteers, to keep improving it. I think criticism about gratitude is strange when the author is pretty clearly coming from the standpoint that it was a bad idea to use this in the first place (and, to be fair and with regards to Python specifically, I tend towards that standpoint myself) that labor begins to look like it's being set on fire. No Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds and all that.

ljm 7y ago

I think she does The Daily WTF better than The Daily WTF sometimes.