5 ms·

God this guy, loves to drone on, Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. This seems to demonstrate th

God this guy, loves to drone on, Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. This seems to demonstrate that, and honestly, this sort of droning on would give me pause to invest in company he has any leadership role in. Why is this drivel even here?

93po 6y ago
>Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. Yet HN completely ignores this and upvotes content when it's someone who reflects their own values
sethc2 6y ago
> Why is this drivel even here? My guess is exactly because of statements like yours. He makes a good point, and when you can see past the conspiracy theory tone, I think this article is kind of awesome. Your kind of response making people feel like this article is bad is almost the entire point why he writes in a crazy way. Does he actually think the NYT is some singular conspirator, plotting the worlds doom? I highly doubt it. Is the NYT a good embodiment of the spirit that he is talking about? I’d say so. This was my favorite part from his article - “ Invite friends to write on your blog. Start 20 blogs all with fake names of fake people. There are no rules! Start a blog for your cat and your rat and your flower garden. How does your rose feel about all this? Change your style with every post. Contradict yourself. Lie to me. Commit plagiarism. Be really egregious about it. Misquote authors and butcher philosophy. There are no rules! Ok now write some good stuff. Like some really deep look out the window and ponder the truth of the ages stuff. Get drunk and write. Get high and write. Write a message in the snow with your piss. I hope it offends somebody. Does this post offend you? Good! Now offend me! Let’s offend each other. Doesn’t it feel good to feel something?”
- skannamalai 6y ago
  Edgy Holden Caulfield vibes will never be a substitute for clarity of thought and evidence for convictions held. Whatever point he is trying to make is lost in the miasma of paranoia and detachment from logic. The existence of Hearst Castle != newspaper economics are healthy and viable, for example.
jdashg 6y ago
On the Doylist side, it's here because it was linked from Scott Siskind's response to the NYT article about himself: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times-article https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-... I read them in that order, and the OP article at least had context that way. It's in part deliberately bad for rhetorical reasons, since it's a call to arms asking for more people to write, just write, good or bad. It's art-prose in the vein of David Foster Wallace. (Edit: I totally meant Samuel Delany)
skannamalai 6y ago
That and for someone "who loves to write," he really ought to invest in a copy of Strunk and White. It can't all be short, terse sentences, my man! Definitely furthers the impression he's not completely all there.

93po 6y ago

>Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. Yet HN completely ignores this and upvotes content when it's someone who reflects their own values

sethc2 6y ago

> Why is this drivel even here? My guess is exactly because of statements like yours. He makes a good point, and when you can see past the conspiracy theory tone, I think this article is kind of awesome. Your kind of response making people feel like this article is bad is almost the entire point why he writes in a crazy way. Does he actually think the NYT is some singular conspirator, plotting the worlds doom? I highly doubt it. Is the NYT a good embodiment of the spirit that he is talking about? I’d say so. This was my favorite part from his article - “ Invite friends to write on your blog. Start 20 blogs all with fake names of fake people. There are no rules! Start a blog for your cat and your rat and your flower garden. How does your rose feel about all this? Change your style with every post. Contradict yourself. Lie to me. Commit plagiarism. Be really egregious about it. Misquote authors and butcher philosophy. There are no rules! Ok now write some good stuff. Like some really deep look out the window and ponder the truth of the ages stuff. Get drunk and write. Get high and write. Write a message in the snow with your piss. I hope it offends somebody. Does this post offend you? Good! Now offend me! Let’s offend each other. Doesn’t it feel good to feel something?”

skannamalai 6y ago
Edgy Holden Caulfield vibes will never be a substitute for clarity of thought and evidence for convictions held. Whatever point he is trying to make is lost in the miasma of paranoia and detachment from logic. The existence of Hearst Castle != newspaper economics are healthy and viable, for example.

jdashg 6y ago

On the Doylist side, it's here because it was linked from Scott Siskind's response to the NYT article about himself: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times-article https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-... I read them in that order, and the OP article at least had context that way. It's in part deliberately bad for rhetorical reasons, since it's a call to arms asking for more people to write, just write, good or bad. It's art-prose in the vein of David Foster Wallace. (Edit: I totally meant Samuel Delany)

skannamalai 6y ago

That and for someone "who loves to write," he really ought to invest in a copy of Strunk and White. It can't all be short, terse sentences, my man! Definitely furthers the impression he's not completely all there.