4 ms·

I'm excited for the Paul Graham post about "roses growing from concrete" or some equally ridiculous and juvenile claim that uses billionaires who make money off

by devin 5y ago

I'm excited for the Paul Graham post about "roses growing from concrete" or some equally ridiculous and juvenile claim that uses billionaires who make money off of creating dubious technology BUT WHO ALSO buy more girl scout cookies than their neighbors as some kind of proof of the value of their continued existence and deserved exaltation.

pstuart 5y ago
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
justinator 5y ago
The best satire is hard to distinguish from reality, isn't it?
dang 5y ago
Please don't fulminate like this on HN, regardless of how you feel about "Paul Graham" or "billionaires". It degrades discussion, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- devin 5y ago
  I disagree with this assessment I think, and am rather disappointed that this post was flagged. In the future (for me) it would be useful to understand exactly what is meant by "fulmination" in the site guidelines. The definition is broad and ranges from "vehement protest" to "exploding violently". I'm not trying to split hairs, but "vehement protest" is also quite vague. I think what I wrote is a pretty concise critique of the public writings of one of the site's founders and it's relevant to the way the HN set interprets articles like this (billionaire donates to soup kitchen). If you could provide some feedback on what specifically led to you flagging the post, I'd appreciate it. Thanks dang!
  - dang 5y ago
    I didn't see a "concise critique", just internet snark and name-calling. Those things are tedious and degrade discussion, which is why the site guidelines ask commenters here to avoid them. You even used quotes to make it look like you were quoting someone when you weren't, which is a trope of degraded discussion in its own right. Thoughtful critique is welcome on HN. That requires substantive engagement with something somebody actually said. It also requires some meaningful relationship to the topic. I didn't see that here, nor any actual information. By 'fulminating' I suppose I mean the high-indignation-low-information style of internet commenting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22high%20indignation%22%20%22low%20information%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). One thing you might find helpful for understanding what's good vs. bad to post to HN—at least I have found it helpful—is the distinction between reflexive and reflective posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Your GP comment struck me as reflexive. It basically seems to hop along a chain of reflexes like this: rich person -> rage -> other rich person -> rage. Another point I orient by is that HN threads get less interesting and valuable as they get more generic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and especially as they get more generic+indignant. To me your GP comment seemed like a sharp move in those directions, which is always a move towards threads getting worse and more predictable. Keep in mind that the issue is not just the value of a comment individually but the expected value of the subthread it is likely to lead to: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... I hope that helps explain things a bit and isn't too much of a downer. I appreciate the question and your intention to understand. I also agree that there are reasonable critiques to be made about "billionaire donates to soup kitchen" stories (if that's what this was). But not by fulminating, and especially not on classic flamewar topics.
    - devin 5y ago
      Thanks for your feedback and thoughtful reply! FWIW, I used quotes because the rose that grew from concrete is a poem, and a phrase that is not my own. My intention was to not pass it off as my own. What I should have done is quoted or referenced a particular essay of PG's to demonstrate that he has in fact written posts which use a similar logic. In any event, I'll be more careful on my quotes in the future. Your links are helpful, and based on them, I think you were right to call me out. Thank you. One suggestion: Perhaps the site guidelines page could reference a couple of these links? I recognize they're off-site, but when I popped open a dictionary and a thesaurus to figure out how I'd crossed the line on "fulmination", it was a bit unclear to me which definition I was dealing with. Granted, precision is not always the solution and moderation is always going to require a bit of feeling rather than some strict criteria by which one comment is allowed to slide and another isn't, but it's at least worth considering IMO. Thanks for being a great mod, dang!

by devin 5y ago

pstuart 5y ago

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

justinator 5y ago

The best satire is hard to distinguish from reality, isn't it?

dang 5y ago

Please don't fulminate like this on HN, regardless of how you feel about "Paul Graham" or "billionaires". It degrades discussion, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

devin 5y ago
I disagree with this assessment I think, and am rather disappointed that this post was flagged. In the future (for me) it would be useful to understand exactly what is meant by "fulmination" in the site guidelines. The definition is broad and ranges from "vehement protest" to "exploding violently". I'm not trying to split hairs, but "vehement protest" is also quite vague. I think what I wrote is a pretty concise critique of the public writings of one of the site's founders and it's relevant to the way the HN set interprets articles like this (billionaire donates to soup kitchen). If you could provide some feedback on what specifically led to you flagging the post, I'd appreciate it. Thanks dang!
- dang 5y ago
  I didn't see a "concise critique", just internet snark and name-calling. Those things are tedious and degrade discussion, which is why the site guidelines ask commenters here to avoid them. You even used quotes to make it look like you were quoting someone when you weren't, which is a trope of degraded discussion in its own right. Thoughtful critique is welcome on HN. That requires substantive engagement with something somebody actually said. It also requires some meaningful relationship to the topic. I didn't see that here, nor any actual information. By 'fulminating' I suppose I mean the high-indignation-low-information style of internet commenting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22high%20indignation%22%20%22low%20information%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). One thing you might find helpful for understanding what's good vs. bad to post to HN—at least I have found it helpful—is the distinction between reflexive and reflective posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Your GP comment struck me as reflexive. It basically seems to hop along a chain of reflexes like this: rich person -> rage -> other rich person -> rage. Another point I orient by is that HN threads get less interesting and valuable as they get more generic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and especially as they get more generic+indignant. To me your GP comment seemed like a sharp move in those directions, which is always a move towards threads getting worse and more predictable. Keep in mind that the issue is not just the value of a comment individually but the expected value of the subthread it is likely to lead to: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... I hope that helps explain things a bit and isn't too much of a downer. I appreciate the question and your intention to understand. I also agree that there are reasonable critiques to be made about "billionaire donates to soup kitchen" stories (if that's what this was). But not by fulminating, and especially not on classic flamewar topics.
  - devin 5y ago
    Thanks for your feedback and thoughtful reply! FWIW, I used quotes because the rose that grew from concrete is a poem, and a phrase that is not my own. My intention was to not pass it off as my own. What I should have done is quoted or referenced a particular essay of PG's to demonstrate that he has in fact written posts which use a similar logic. In any event, I'll be more careful on my quotes in the future. Your links are helpful, and based on them, I think you were right to call me out. Thank you. One suggestion: Perhaps the site guidelines page could reference a couple of these links? I recognize they're off-site, but when I popped open a dictionary and a thesaurus to figure out how I'd crossed the line on "fulmination", it was a bit unclear to me which definition I was dealing with. Granted, precision is not always the solution and moderation is always going to require a bit of feeling rather than some strict criteria by which one comment is allowed to slide and another isn't, but it's at least worth considering IMO. Thanks for being a great mod, dang!