6 ms·

Maybe Amazon is more interesting than Google, but the only thing you have demonstrated here, OP, is that it is not you who will be demonstrating this for us. An

by antics 15y ago

Maybe Amazon is more interesting than Google, but the only thing you have demonstrated here, OP, is that it is not you who will be demonstrating this for us. And the real miracle of your screed is that there are dozens of issues that you could have raised, but by God almighty and all that is holy under the sun, you have managed to avoid every single one of them, except one. And the one you got is not important by itself. Let's have some examples. You write, "They decide that you are an elite engineer primarily based on whether you went to an elite school." Yeah, OP? According to who? You? Maybe there's a place where it's acceptable to get up and air vague, unsubstantiated conjecture about something you don't understand, but in the real world, you have to qualify your argumentation. I might add that even if it is the case that Google hires primarily from prestigious universities, you are not accounting for the fact that they could actually just be better on average. There are other examples, too, but rather than point out the withered editorial you serve up for literally the first 2/5ths of the article, I think I'll do us all a favor by pointing out that your first actual fact is that Amazon makes tools -- and that this fact appears more than halfway into the article. And more critically, that it is delivered without any real impacts. Even if Amazon delivers more tools, WHO CARES? HOW DOES THIS DEMONSTRATE YOUR POINT? And actually, while I'm here, what IS your point? Strong claims demand strong evidence, and if you're going to drop a line like "But the world has changed, and Google can’t seem to keep up", then you'd better damn well be prepared to back it up.

plinkplonk 15y ago
You probably have a reasonable argument somewhere in there. Less "shouting" (use of block letters), attacking the poster (vs his argument) and empty rhetorical flourishes ("but by God almighty and all that is holy under the sun") would help the rest of us actually understand your argument. I think the useful bits of your comment can be summed up as (your sentence) "Strong claims demand strong evidence" without all the accompanying histrionics.
- antics 15y ago
  Yes, you're probably right. I'm a classically trained debater, and I tend to talk and write the way I was trained. Also I tend to post only when I'm annoyed, and I turn more into a speechmaker the more I get annoyed. It's maybe a weakness and I'll consider making a conscious effort if other people seem to agree. EDIT: I'm going to mark this as the first time in my life that people in general disapprove of honest personal inventory. What it is that they would have rather heard (a lie?) is unclear.
  - plinkplonk 15y ago
    I suspect you are being downvoted (I didn't downvote you fwiw) for "I'm a classically trained debater, and I tend to talk and write the way I was trained." and "It's maybe a weakness" . The first is downright silly. Debate training helps you in a formal debate. It isn't meant to be the guide for generic speaking or writing. Do you speak at the dinner table or to friends or family "in the manner you were trained" for debate? That would lead to you being an interesting companion ;) (As an aside, whether your OP is a good example for "classical debating style" is open to question) A debate is an artifical situation where "scoring points" with a variety of content lite tricks (e.g: attacking the person or his style, or his mannerisms vs his arguments) are valid tactical maneuvers. Scoring points is more important in a formal debate than exploring a topic or seeking nuance and truth. You see this in political debates all the time where substance is minimal, complex issues are reduced to soundbites and rhetoric and style dominate. Most normal life conversations, including internet conversations are not formal "debates". Especially here. On HN, namecalling etc are frowned on. A sharp and insightful comment using the minimum of empty flourishes would serve you well here if you want to maximize karma reward. As a classically trained debater, you are no doubt used to changing your style to suit the audience. As to "It is maybe a weakness", if you talk "debatese" in real life anytime someone makes an argument that annoys you , there is no "maybe" about "it is a weakness". You also implicitly asked for people's judgement on your writing style ("I'll consider making a conscious effort if other people seem to agree"). Consider the downvotes to be feedback on your writing style and your defense of it vs "disapprove of personal inventory" (leaving aside the question of whether HN is the right forum to make personal inventory).
    - stmartin 15y ago
      Do you know that a "sharp insightful comment" has at least 6.8 billion definitions, and only one is true - yours?
    - antics 15y ago
      > A debate is an artifical situation where "scoring points" with a variety of dubious tactics e.g: attacking the person (or his style, or his mannerisms) are valid tactical maneuvers. Scoring points is more important in a formal debate than exploring a topic or seeking nuance and truth. [...] Most normal life conversations, including internet conversations are not formal "debates". Especially here. Debate is about scoring points via dubious tactics? Says who? You? I don't mean to be a burden to talk to, but while you're presenting the noble argument that HN community is a pack of discerning, objective truth-seekers, what you've said is patently and unquestionably wrong, and if you get upvoted, then the real message that I should take away is that such dubious and pandering tactics are only acceptable in contexts where the community agrees with you a priori. > Debate training helps you in a formal debate. It isn't meant to be the guide for generic "speaking or writing". Do you speak at the dinner table or to friends or family "in the manner you were trained" for debate? You're wrong, and this is wrong. The point of debate is to learn to build consensus in an audience in a variety of scenarios. If you're talking at length, or writing an essay, you will change what you do to be more effective in those cases. If you are answering questions in cross examination, or shouting over someone in a crowded room, then you will again alter your presentation accordingly. And generally, if you were trained properly, then you will have developed a specific communication style for a huge swath of activities that require it. Including conversation. Including letters. Including posts on the Internet. If I'm wrong, it's in practice, not form, and to dispute this, you have some heavy lifting to do, particularly in the first passage I note in this post. The fact that you are well-spoken and well-adjusted in the community is certainly appreciable, and while your advice is probably not completely wrong, that doesn't make you right either.

by antics 15y ago

plinkplonk 15y ago

You probably have a reasonable argument somewhere in there. Less "shouting" (use of block letters), attacking the poster (vs his argument) and empty rhetorical flourishes ("but by God almighty and all that is holy under the sun") would help the rest of us actually understand your argument. I think the useful bits of your comment can be summed up as (your sentence) "Strong claims demand strong evidence" without all the accompanying histrionics.

antics 15y ago
Yes, you're probably right. I'm a classically trained debater, and I tend to talk and write the way I was trained. Also I tend to post only when I'm annoyed, and I turn more into a speechmaker the more I get annoyed. It's maybe a weakness and I'll consider making a conscious effort if other people seem to agree. EDIT: I'm going to mark this as the first time in my life that people in general disapprove of honest personal inventory. What it is that they would have rather heard (a lie?) is unclear.
- plinkplonk 15y ago
  I suspect you are being downvoted (I didn't downvote you fwiw) for "I'm a classically trained debater, and I tend to talk and write the way I was trained." and "It's maybe a weakness" . The first is downright silly. Debate training helps you in a formal debate. It isn't meant to be the guide for generic speaking or writing. Do you speak at the dinner table or to friends or family "in the manner you were trained" for debate? That would lead to you being an interesting companion ;) (As an aside, whether your OP is a good example for "classical debating style" is open to question) A debate is an artifical situation where "scoring points" with a variety of content lite tricks (e.g: attacking the person or his style, or his mannerisms vs his arguments) are valid tactical maneuvers. Scoring points is more important in a formal debate than exploring a topic or seeking nuance and truth. You see this in political debates all the time where substance is minimal, complex issues are reduced to soundbites and rhetoric and style dominate. Most normal life conversations, including internet conversations are not formal "debates". Especially here. On HN, namecalling etc are frowned on. A sharp and insightful comment using the minimum of empty flourishes would serve you well here if you want to maximize karma reward. As a classically trained debater, you are no doubt used to changing your style to suit the audience. As to "It is maybe a weakness", if you talk "debatese" in real life anytime someone makes an argument that annoys you , there is no "maybe" about "it is a weakness". You also implicitly asked for people's judgement on your writing style ("I'll consider making a conscious effort if other people seem to agree"). Consider the downvotes to be feedback on your writing style and your defense of it vs "disapprove of personal inventory" (leaving aside the question of whether HN is the right forum to make personal inventory).
  - stmartin 15y ago
    Do you know that a "sharp insightful comment" has at least 6.8 billion definitions, and only one is true - yours?
  - antics 15y ago
    > A debate is an artifical situation where "scoring points" with a variety of dubious tactics e.g: attacking the person (or his style, or his mannerisms) are valid tactical maneuvers. Scoring points is more important in a formal debate than exploring a topic or seeking nuance and truth. [...] Most normal life conversations, including internet conversations are not formal "debates". Especially here. Debate is about scoring points via dubious tactics? Says who? You? I don't mean to be a burden to talk to, but while you're presenting the noble argument that HN community is a pack of discerning, objective truth-seekers, what you've said is patently and unquestionably wrong, and if you get upvoted, then the real message that I should take away is that such dubious and pandering tactics are only acceptable in contexts where the community agrees with you a priori. > Debate training helps you in a formal debate. It isn't meant to be the guide for generic "speaking or writing". Do you speak at the dinner table or to friends or family "in the manner you were trained" for debate? You're wrong, and this is wrong. The point of debate is to learn to build consensus in an audience in a variety of scenarios. If you're talking at length, or writing an essay, you will change what you do to be more effective in those cases. If you are answering questions in cross examination, or shouting over someone in a crowded room, then you will again alter your presentation accordingly. And generally, if you were trained properly, then you will have developed a specific communication style for a huge swath of activities that require it. Including conversation. Including letters. Including posts on the Internet. If I'm wrong, it's in practice, not form, and to dispute this, you have some heavy lifting to do, particularly in the first passage I note in this post. The fact that you are well-spoken and well-adjusted in the community is certainly appreciable, and while your advice is probably not completely wrong, that doesn't make you right either.