7 ms·
This is also concerning because it contradicts the general sentiment here on HN that You Should Be Blogging. Maybe you shouldn't... or at very least, there's mo
by caterama 6y ago
This is also concerning because it contradicts the general sentiment here on HN that You Should Be Blogging. Maybe you shouldn't... or at very least, there's more to consider than first appears.
- smnrchrds 6y agoA lot of things that may be sound career advice in SF tech scene would make terrible advice for other fields and other places. One example is frequent job hops. SF software companies may not judge you negatively because of it, but Zurich architecture firms (as a random example) might.
- YuriNiyazov 6y agoDepends on what you mean by frequent. At a SF software company, and I look at multiple 6-9 month stints as very big red flags that must have overwhelming evidence in the other direction to be considered. OTOH 2 - 3 years is perfectly fine; I can maybe imagine “Zurich architecture firms” viewing 2-3 years as flighty, if they are used to employees that used to be there decades.
- lmg643 6y agoYou should be blogging...and you can, as long as you avoid saying any of the Things You Can't Say, which seems to mean following a template, which means the content gets bland and repetitive - unless it is technical, in which case it's special interest and the censors lose interest. (That's actually my best guess as to why HN has stayed high quality all these years - minimal politics.) Bloging, or writing, is just thinking out loud. Thinking about the real world outside of technology can easily yield heterodox conclusions that are better off not published these days.
- yters 6y agoYes, it is a good thing there are no Things You Cannot Say here at HN. People only get downvoted into oblivion and threads removed for contentless comments.
- coldtea 6y agoSarcasm?
- dang 6y agoPlease stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN. It's tedious. That's the real sin here.
- yters 6y agoI can find such comments and threads if you wish. By your own admission in our past interactions you have stated there are certain topics you remove because you think they lead to flamewars. That may actually be a good thing, and your reason for doing so may be justified. However, this also means there are indeed topics that cannot be discussed on HN. Therefore, it is false for anyone to claim PG's forum does not enforce some form of censorship.
- dang 6y agoDoing more of exactly what I just asked you to stop is not cool. Sure, HN is moderated, that's obvious. Obviousness-spun-as-sinisterness is at the far end of the tedium spectrum, which is why I asked you to stop.
- yters 6y agoYou asked me to stop posting u substantive comments in response to my sarcasm, so I substantiated my claim. I also explained you are not doing anything sinister, that your actions are entirely explicable through well intentioned and reasonable motivations. Yet, this does not preclude censorship and a set of topics which are considered Things You Cannot Say. I don't believe any of this is controversial, and in fact is entirely consistent with Paul Graham's essay. There are taboo subjects, and he says the best thing is to not talk about them openly. And I would imagine if he ran a forum the same would go for the forum: go ahead and censor all the distracting controversial subjects.
- free_rms 6y agoThings You Can't Say change over time though, so you can't keep archives either.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MrPatan 6y ago> avoid saying any of the Things You Can't Say Ha ha, we should be so lucky. No, you also have to Say the Things You Must Say, or you're suspect. Good luck!
- jokethrowaway 6y agoI'd love blogging or doing YouTube videos but there are enough crazy people out there I'd rather stay anonymous my entire life