4 ms·

The point about space and understanding to try new things and not be amazing at them isn't a bad one, but the thing about having 1:1s with your partner that is

by Osmose 6y ago

The point about space and understanding to try new things and not be amazing at them isn't a bad one, but the thing about having 1:1s with your partner that is drawing ridicule isn't the idea of having a scheduled, weekly check-in with your partner; it's that business-talk is intentionally de-personified and using it in a personal context implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. Consider that I called it a "weekly check-in with your partner" above. That phrasing focuses on the existing relationship and the consideration of checking on how they're doing. A "1:1" is called that to distinguish it from other meetings that involve more than two people, and drops all the connotations of concern or supporting an existing relationship. That's what people are reacting negatively to.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Yes, you're right that business talk is depersonified and implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. And this is an assertion backed up by lots of other business talk--referring to humans as "resources" is probably the worst I hear often. And this assertion is further supported by the frequent, sociopathic behavior of businesses which goes beyond how they communicate. But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit?
- Osmose 6y ago
  > But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? No one's saying they don't really care about their partner. It's possible to be put off and derisive of that language without judging whether they truly care. > And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit? I mean, yeah. That part of Hacker News is pretty appalling. We _should_ be angry about dehumanizing language in a business context.
- gnramires 6y ago
  There is such a thing as a hacker ethic. To me the core is something like "Try to save the world through math, science, understanding, and making cool things." The term has much more history than startup culture, although the goals of startups (many YC funded) can be in line with those ideals (if imperfectly).
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    This seems a bit off-topic, but is more interesting to me than the topic, so I'll roll with it. :) I don't think the hacker ethic is necessarily about saving the world, and I while I can hypothesize a startup that aligns with a hacker ethic, I have not in practice seen any examples. The hacker ethic is about gaining a deep functional understanding of a system, and then using that deep functional understanding to make that system do something unexpected or cool. As soon as you bring money into the equation, it causes people to do all sorts of predictable and boring things. There are certainly people with hacker cred who have gotten rich, but the money was incidental to the hacking. For example, Woz has it because he designed computers he wanted to use and that happened to turn out to be very profitable.
    - gnramires 6y ago
      > I don't think the hacker ethic is necessarily about saving the world, and I while I can hypothesize a startup that aligns with a hacker ethic, I have not in practice seen any examples. I guess it's more of a particular interpretation, of me growing up with a 90s idealism of saving the world. It's a bit naive of course, but a naivety of the hopeful kind, not of ignorant kind. Orgs that come to mind are Wikipedia, Khan Academy, various Open Source projects and foundations, etc. I do think maintaining a good, coherent mission is still an open problem with successful companies, but many do help one way or another. For example, Dropbox was quite revolutionary in the way everyone uses and shares files I think. Reddit changed internet discourse (in some valuable, and in some complicated ways), though its trajectory is uncertain. Maybe there could be a stronger version of a Mission statement? Something like companies committing to a mission statement, and being liable somehow to acting inconsistency with it (who would monitor this though? should be some kind of external entity), and shareholders/board members should not be allowed to modify it in a manner gravely inconsistent with the original vision.

by Osmose 6y ago

kerkeslager 6y ago

Yes, you're right that business talk is depersonified and implies a lack of respect for the human you're dealing with. And this is an assertion backed up by lots of other business talk--referring to humans as "resources" is probably the worst I hear often. And this assertion is further supported by the frequent, sociopathic behavior of businesses which goes beyond how they communicate. But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit?

Osmose 6y ago
> But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? No one's saying they don't really care about their partner. It's possible to be put off and derisive of that language without judging whether they truly care. > And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit? I mean, yeah. That part of Hacker News is pretty appalling. We _should_ be angry about dehumanizing language in a business context.
gnramires 6y ago
There is such a thing as a hacker ethic. To me the core is something like "Try to save the world through math, science, understanding, and making cool things." The term has much more history than startup culture, although the goals of startups (many YC funded) can be in line with those ideals (if imperfectly).
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  This seems a bit off-topic, but is more interesting to me than the topic, so I'll roll with it. :) I don't think the hacker ethic is necessarily about saving the world, and I while I can hypothesize a startup that aligns with a hacker ethic, I have not in practice seen any examples. The hacker ethic is about gaining a deep functional understanding of a system, and then using that deep functional understanding to make that system do something unexpected or cool. As soon as you bring money into the equation, it causes people to do all sorts of predictable and boring things. There are certainly people with hacker cred who have gotten rich, but the money was incidental to the hacking. For example, Woz has it because he designed computers he wanted to use and that happened to turn out to be very profitable.
  - gnramires 6y ago
    > I don't think the hacker ethic is necessarily about saving the world, and I while I can hypothesize a startup that aligns with a hacker ethic, I have not in practice seen any examples. I guess it's more of a particular interpretation, of me growing up with a 90s idealism of saving the world. It's a bit naive of course, but a naivety of the hopeful kind, not of ignorant kind. Orgs that come to mind are Wikipedia, Khan Academy, various Open Source projects and foundations, etc. I do think maintaining a good, coherent mission is still an open problem with successful companies, but many do help one way or another. For example, Dropbox was quite revolutionary in the way everyone uses and shares files I think. Reddit changed internet discourse (in some valuable, and in some complicated ways), though its trajectory is uncertain. Maybe there could be a stronger version of a Mission statement? Something like companies committing to a mission statement, and being liable somehow to acting inconsistency with it (who would monitor this though? should be some kind of external entity), and shareholders/board members should not be allowed to modify it in a manner gravely inconsistent with the original vision.