4 ms·

HN is about technical, objective things and those other points you mentioned are mostly emotional subjective topics. It would be strange to see them discussed h

by xwdv 4y ago

HN is about technical, objective things and those other points you mentioned are mostly emotional subjective topics. It would be strange to see them discussed here at any significant length.

jmull 4y ago
I was about to post a reply that engages with your claims, but now I'm thinking you're not serious (I don't want to use the T-word here, but that's what I'm thinking.) If you're serious, could you explain your claims?
- xwdv 4y ago
  I don’t know why you wouldn’t think I’m serious, nor do I think the claim that HN is about technical topics needs explanation.
runarberg 4y ago
The first paragraph of the HN guidelines: > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Societal issues are apparently high up in what good hackers find interesting along with technical things.
- least 4y ago
  > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I think if you take this to heart, you might interpret what they're saying as a defense of HN readers; that they are more inclined to talk about the technicalities of this decision rather than the effect it may have on women because that is something they can comment on. Tact may also play a role in why people hesitate to make comments of empathy, especially since simply expressing your disdain for the decision isn't particularly substantive. I'm certain many of the people that are choosing to talk about other aspects of the decision are wholly empathetic to the people this affects.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    You hit the nail on the head. On my social media which isn’t always a particularly intellectual medium, people are already expressing their outrage… but not really saying much else. The result: reading about how yet another person is so mad about the ruling and “so tired of this country” and what a blow this is for women’s rights has gotten repetitive and uninteresting. After a certain point, reading such comments over and over again is just giving in to outrage porn. Most members of HN recognize this and prefer the intellectual stimulation that comes from discussing more nuanced technical details.
Comevius 4y ago
It would be strange not to. Technology exist for people. Most choices in computers and software are made to accommodate people. We are in the people business. You need to understand people to be able to produce things for them.

by xwdv 4y ago

HN is about technical, objective things and those other points you mentioned are mostly emotional subjective topics. It would be strange to see them discussed here at any significant length.

jmull 4y ago

I was about to post a reply that engages with your claims, but now I'm thinking you're not serious (I don't want to use the T-word here, but that's what I'm thinking.) If you're serious, could you explain your claims?

xwdv 4y ago
I don’t know why you wouldn’t think I’m serious, nor do I think the claim that HN is about technical topics needs explanation.

runarberg 4y ago

The first paragraph of the HN guidelines: > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Societal issues are apparently high up in what good hackers find interesting along with technical things.

least 4y ago
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I think if you take this to heart, you might interpret what they're saying as a defense of HN readers; that they are more inclined to talk about the technicalities of this decision rather than the effect it may have on women because that is something they can comment on. Tact may also play a role in why people hesitate to make comments of empathy, especially since simply expressing your disdain for the decision isn't particularly substantive. I'm certain many of the people that are choosing to talk about other aspects of the decision are wholly empathetic to the people this affects.
- xwdv 4y ago
  You hit the nail on the head. On my social media which isn’t always a particularly intellectual medium, people are already expressing their outrage… but not really saying much else. The result: reading about how yet another person is so mad about the ruling and “so tired of this country” and what a blow this is for women’s rights has gotten repetitive and uninteresting. After a certain point, reading such comments over and over again is just giving in to outrage porn. Most members of HN recognize this and prefer the intellectual stimulation that comes from discussing more nuanced technical details.

Comevius 4y ago

It would be strange not to. Technology exist for people. Most choices in computers and software are made to accommodate people. We are in the people business. You need to understand people to be able to produce things for them.