3 ms·

I thought there was "NotHackerNews" et. al. for a reason.

by tdavis 18y ago

icey 18y ago
This is more evidence of the bizarro universe taking ours over. For the first time I can recall, Peter Norvig is being labeled "NotHackerNews"
- technoguyrob 18y ago
  In this instance, the author is irrelevant. This would have been more aptly titled "2008 Election FAQ (by Peter Norvig)".
  - hugh 18y ago
    Or even better, "Why I prefer candidate A to candidate B, phrased in FAQ form with occasional attempts to sound impartial by pointing out [before immediately dismissing] the arguments the other way, by Peter Norvig". Don't get me wrong -- as far as party-political blog postings go this one is by no means especially bad, but nor is it good enough to transcend its genre of the usual douche-is-better-than-turd politics.
- tdavis 18y ago
  It's a hacker writing about politics. Unless he developed some algorithm to determine the winner based on number of lies and non-answer-answers, I don't really give a damn about his "objective" analysis.
  - robg 18y ago
    He cites 538 a few times. That's good enough for me. Some of the best "objective" analyses, based on evolving algorithms of poll data, are being done there. 1000 simulations/day across each of the 50 states. Watch how accurate they end up being.
    - robg 18y ago
      EDIT: That's 10,000 simulations/day.
  - icey 18y ago
    I'm sorry, this is an instance of snark gone wrong. I don't disagree with your "NonHackerNews" assessment. I just think it's funny that it applies to Peter Norvig too.
  - brent 18y ago
    Well, then it fits as well as any of PG's essays that don't explicitly discuss 'hacking' and those never get this complaint.
    - pchristensen 18y ago
      That's the benefit of owning the keys to the server room :)
rms 18y ago
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.)
- tdavis 18y ago
  I've always found this copy-paste rather hypocritical since by responding to my comment you are submitting a comment complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site instead of flagging it, thereby contradicting your entire stance on the issue. If you don't like my comment, flag it, don't tell me something I already know. Edit: Also, it would seem that down-voting would serve an even better purpose here since while you can down-vote my comment, there's nothing of substance I can do about this stupid article w/o commenting on it since, historically, I have seen no effect from flagging.
  - cstejerean 18y ago
    "there's nothing of substance I can do about this stupid article w/o commenting on it". You can ignore it.
  - rms 18y ago
    Actually one of the few threads where I've done this in the past was killed, presumably by flagging. I don't think it takes that many flags to kill a story. In the end my comment is certainly wasting space, but in the end hopefully it results in less people complaining about submissions. Finally if you want to play semantics, the guidelines say don't complain about a "submission." Complaining about comments is fair game.
    - tdavis 18y ago
      Ah, well I stand corrected then. My argument of semantics was perhaps not warranted, I was just frustrated by this and another recent article. I'm not sure which is more annoying, political submissions or articles that are on-topic but simply idiotic (see: TC article @ #8.) At least HN remains the best alternative.
logjam 18y ago
Posted as an example of a refreshing, rational, surprisingly lucid way to look at making a particular decision using messy data. Norvig's analysis, whether you agree with it or not, is a good example of using a particular tool occasionally prized by some scientists and engineers -- reason. Some folks do seem to get a bit upset when reason interferes with their own irrational, sacred cows. Understandable.
mattmaroon 18y ago
It's NonHackerNews.com.

I thought there was "NotHackerNews" et. al. for a reason.

by tdavis 18y ago

I thought there was "NotHackerNews" et. al. for a reason.

icey 18y ago

This is more evidence of the bizarro universe taking ours over. For the first time I can recall, Peter Norvig is being labeled "NotHackerNews"

technoguyrob 18y ago
In this instance, the author is irrelevant. This would have been more aptly titled "2008 Election FAQ (by Peter Norvig)".
- hugh 18y ago
  Or even better, "Why I prefer candidate A to candidate B, phrased in FAQ form with occasional attempts to sound impartial by pointing out [before immediately dismissing] the arguments the other way, by Peter Norvig". Don't get me wrong -- as far as party-political blog postings go this one is by no means especially bad, but nor is it good enough to transcend its genre of the usual douche-is-better-than-turd politics.
tdavis 18y ago
It's a hacker writing about politics. Unless he developed some algorithm to determine the winner based on number of lies and non-answer-answers, I don't really give a damn about his "objective" analysis.
- robg 18y ago
  He cites 538 a few times. That's good enough for me. Some of the best "objective" analyses, based on evolving algorithms of poll data, are being done there. 1000 simulations/day across each of the 50 states. Watch how accurate they end up being.
  - robg 18y ago
    EDIT: That's 10,000 simulations/day.
- icey 18y ago
  I'm sorry, this is an instance of snark gone wrong. I don't disagree with your "NonHackerNews" assessment. I just think it's funny that it applies to Peter Norvig too.
- brent 18y ago
  Well, then it fits as well as any of PG's essays that don't explicitly discuss 'hacking' and those never get this complaint.
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    That's the benefit of owning the keys to the server room :)

rms 18y ago

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.)

tdavis 18y ago
I've always found this copy-paste rather hypocritical since by responding to my comment you are submitting a comment complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site instead of flagging it, thereby contradicting your entire stance on the issue. If you don't like my comment, flag it, don't tell me something I already know. Edit: Also, it would seem that down-voting would serve an even better purpose here since while you can down-vote my comment, there's nothing of substance I can do about this stupid article w/o commenting on it since, historically, I have seen no effect from flagging.
- cstejerean 18y ago
  "there's nothing of substance I can do about this stupid article w/o commenting on it". You can ignore it.
- rms 18y ago
  Actually one of the few threads where I've done this in the past was killed, presumably by flagging. I don't think it takes that many flags to kill a story. In the end my comment is certainly wasting space, but in the end hopefully it results in less people complaining about submissions. Finally if you want to play semantics, the guidelines say don't complain about a "submission." Complaining about comments is fair game.
  - tdavis 18y ago
    Ah, well I stand corrected then. My argument of semantics was perhaps not warranted, I was just frustrated by this and another recent article. I'm not sure which is more annoying, political submissions or articles that are on-topic but simply idiotic (see: TC article @ #8.) At least HN remains the best alternative.

logjam 18y ago

Posted as an example of a refreshing, rational, surprisingly lucid way to look at making a particular decision using messy data. Norvig's analysis, whether you agree with it or not, is a good example of using a particular tool occasionally prized by some scientists and engineers -- reason. Some folks do seem to get a bit upset when reason interferes with their own irrational, sacred cows. Understandable.

mattmaroon 18y ago

It's NonHackerNews.com.