3 ms·

Rant incoming. I, for one, appreciate it. This thing on HN where you have to beat around the bush and phrase your sentences objectively and in a general way, w

Rant incoming. I, for one, appreciate it. This thing on HN where you have to beat around the bush and phrase your sentences objectively and in a general way, when everybody knows that you are just talking about a specific instance, saying things like "if you [x] then someone may respond [y]" when it is clear that someone literally said [x] so you can just say [y] in reply.. All that stuff is incredibly tiring to read IMHO. If you just want to call out someone's bullshit you should be able to do so in a straightforward manner and in a tone that corresponds with "calling out someone's bullshit". If we could just be a little bit more honest here I think it would be an improvement.

josalhor 6y ago
While I somewhat agree with the sentiment of your comment, one of the reasons I believe Hacker News is so civilized is because the arguments are always very rationalized. That is, it is easy to point out faulting logic. Following up with your example: If someone simply states [y] then the context of where [y] came from is lost and the discussion turns into a person saying [x] and a person saying [y], which is a step too close to becoming Twitter. While I agree it can sometimes be a bit tiresome to read and write, I say this significantly improves the overall quality of the conversations.
inglor_cz 6y ago
I understand your position, it is definitely more natural to answer less analytically and more emotionally. But this is commonplace elsewhere on the Internet and you can see the results. Too often the argument deteriorates into ad-hominem mud flinging. HN is pretty rare in its analytic culture. I appreciate it and enjoy the difference from Twitter, Reddit et al. enormously. It is important to realize that we cannot really read the minds on the other side of the screen and a lot of our assumptions what somebody really wanted to say are just prejudice.
roenxi 6y ago
It isn't normally clear that someone just said [x]. HN is united only in interests; the usual crowd has a pretty broad range of cultural backgrounds and there enormous room to misinterpret people without body language. Twitter has sentences, HN has paragraphs. It is an improvement, but it isn't really a suitable format for discussion. And in that vein, the most reasonable interpretation of the thread ancestor is "look, we've been through this sort of thing a couple of times in the last 7,000 odd years of recorded history - why does this all seem to be surprising to the people in charge and catching them unprepared?". We know we've been here before, and it isn't that crazy to say the current state of the world looks like the prelude to WWI or WWII. Reading books like "The great depression: A diary" is a pretty decent idea. It would have been much more helpful if old mate had argued why there were similarities. Maybe with coaxing they would have. "Yikes. Things have really gone downhill around here. Stick to tech, folks." does not encourage anything half as productive as looking to the past for answers. There are bigger problems afoot in 2021 than tech.

josalhor 6y ago

While I somewhat agree with the sentiment of your comment, one of the reasons I believe Hacker News is so civilized is because the arguments are always very rationalized. That is, it is easy to point out faulting logic. Following up with your example: If someone simply states [y] then the context of where [y] came from is lost and the discussion turns into a person saying [x] and a person saying [y], which is a step too close to becoming Twitter. While I agree it can sometimes be a bit tiresome to read and write, I say this significantly improves the overall quality of the conversations.

inglor_cz 6y ago

I understand your position, it is definitely more natural to answer less analytically and more emotionally. But this is commonplace elsewhere on the Internet and you can see the results. Too often the argument deteriorates into ad-hominem mud flinging. HN is pretty rare in its analytic culture. I appreciate it and enjoy the difference from Twitter, Reddit et al. enormously. It is important to realize that we cannot really read the minds on the other side of the screen and a lot of our assumptions what somebody really wanted to say are just prejudice.

roenxi 6y ago

It isn't normally clear that someone just said [x]. HN is united only in interests; the usual crowd has a pretty broad range of cultural backgrounds and there enormous room to misinterpret people without body language. Twitter has sentences, HN has paragraphs. It is an improvement, but it isn't really a suitable format for discussion. And in that vein, the most reasonable interpretation of the thread ancestor is "look, we've been through this sort of thing a couple of times in the last 7,000 odd years of recorded history - why does this all seem to be surprising to the people in charge and catching them unprepared?". We know we've been here before, and it isn't that crazy to say the current state of the world looks like the prelude to WWI or WWII. Reading books like "The great depression: A diary" is a pretty decent idea. It would have been much more helpful if old mate had argued why there were similarities. Maybe with coaxing they would have. "Yikes. Things have really gone downhill around here. Stick to tech, folks." does not encourage anything half as productive as looking to the past for answers. There are bigger problems afoot in 2021 than tech.