20 ms·

Some tactics for writing in public

566 points by hasheddan 3y ago

renewiltord 3y ago
These seem good. "Experience over opinions" was novel to me. Good one. I didn't like "pre-empt" because it results in tedious prose. She's obviously a skillful writer so it's smooth for her, but I cannot do it right. "Don't argue" is good. I fail this one frequently. The trick that works for me is to remind myself that I'm training someone for free. I can't say I'm very good at "analyse negative comments". Some sort of CBT technique is probably necessary here, but I feel the following in order: - "omg was I wrong?" followed by a quick check - if yes, good outcome. I can just correct. if no, causes anger I don't know why but being right and misunderstood is far more frustrating than being wrong. The latter triggers the "well, damn" dopamine response of discovery. But I'll keep pecking at the damned subject if I was right but the other guy refuses to understand it. This is my prime motivation for blocking on Twitter - and ideally people who misunderstand me frequently would block me too so I won't engage. The others are sensible and it's nice that they're listed, but I don't think they are novel (which is obviously fine - presumably everyone has a different novel set here).
janalsncm 3y ago
I have a personal blog where I write about strictly professional topics. I have another blog where I write about things under a pen name because they are opinions that some people might not like. Having a shadow identity gives me the space to be “wrong” if I need to be.
menacepineapple 3y ago
[dead]
guy98238710 3y ago
Is it just me or is this post screaming with self-consciousness and political correctness? Author is self-censoring policy suggestions and social/cultural insights, which I personally find interesting to write and read about, especially the weirder ones that provide transformational experience. And the dig-related blocking is just jarring. It makes it look like the author is quick on the trigger. PS: I just noticed that all comments in this thread that are even slightly critical are downvoted below zero. My own comment too. It's normal to see critical comments ignored (not upvoted) here, but downvoting anything remotely critical below zero is unusual even by HN standards. I guess a post about self-censorship attracts audience that desires this strange new self-conscious world where everyone has to nod to everyone else.
- datagram 3y ago
  The author is tactically avoiding discussions that she considers unproductive and does not want to participate in, hence the title of the blog post. > Is it just me or is this post screaming with self-consciousness and political correctness? Good writers always consider the way their choice of words will affect their audience. Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?
  - guy98238710 3y ago
    > Good writers always consider the way their choice of words will affect their audience. It's not the choice of words. It's the choice of topics. > The author is tactically avoiding discussions that she considers unproductive The author is not avoiding certain topics because they are unproductive but rather because she fears backlash on social media.
- wilde 3y ago
  The author is saying that they want to write things that generate discussion threads of interest to them. You have different interests. Quick on the trigger is exactly the point of the dig example. The author is reminding you that you have control over what you see and you should use it. Most people have a set of topics they can’t constructively engage in debate over. That’s fine. I’d rather they conserve their energy and keep posting on topics where they can. — Upvote means I agree. Downvote means I disagree. You might have other opinions about what they should represent but the nature of voting systems is that they trend towards this. Like how I wish people would rate things 3/5 by default rather than 5/5. Sadly only IMDB ended up like this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
oporquinho94 3y ago
Stories are definitely the best way to get something across - also the content i enjoy the most reading since it's usually high quality and personal writing. Much more interesting than clickbait thought pieces.
andai 3y ago
Wait until she hears about finger...
neerajk 3y ago
Embarrassingly, I was today years old when I learnt that dig used to be a) an acronym and b) what is stood for
- nurbel 3y ago
  and ping as well (learnt that from the mastodon thread)!
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Never knew that although it seems like the acronym was contrived after the obvious "ping" (as in sonar) was coined.
  - medler 3y ago
    Ping was originally named after sonar pings. Then later some guy came up with a weird acronym for a thing he did not invent. We don’t have to acknowledge it as a legitimate acronym. And as far as I can tell, the backronym is not a part of ping man pages, unlike with dig
- hk__2 3y ago
  I didn’t knew that either, and there’s nothing embarrassing about it: pretty much every CLI tool that doesn’t have a clear name is an acronym (grep, cd, pwd, dd, yacc, etc).
mjb 3y ago
This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing for the 50th time. Somehow we've built a culture where its socially acceptable, and even rewarded, to behave online in ways that would never be acceptable in other social settings. The exact flavors of that on HN, Slashdot, Twitter, Tumblr, etc are different, but the core issue is the same everywhere.
- omoikane 3y ago
  > I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention An optimistic view is that people maintain blacklists of topics to avoid, as opposed to whitelists of noncontroversial topics that they are allowed to talk about ("Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?").
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > The exact flavors of that on HN, Slashdot, Twitter, Tumblr, etc are different, but the core issue is the same everywhere. I think there are three main factors. Some cases are more one than the other. 1. Anonymity. Many places people know who you really are. Your family, friends, and coworkers arent judging you. 2. Using a mob for cover. As an analogy, its a lot safer to throw a Molotov cocktail from a crowd then by yourself. 3. No empathy for avatars. You aren’t talking to a real person, who you would empathize a lot more with. After writing these, they are largely different shades of anonymity.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    Ah, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
- ghaff 3y ago
tomrod 3y ago
I really enjoy her writing. I hope one day to have an audience that keeps me at my computer a few hours after posting!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
wrp 3y ago
Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as the rest. These are pretty much the rules I've adopted for posting on HN.
- tayo42 3y ago
  how did you come up with number 9 from this post? fwiw, all the people who dont read the articles, 9 isnt in there. its actually "set some boundaries"
  - wrp 3y ago
    Fair criticism. I should have been more clear.
- tristor 3y ago
  Number 9 isn't there, and in my personal interactions right here on HN, Julie doesn't ignore people who challenge her viewpoint. She says "Set Some Boundaries" and in fact doing so is not only necessary, it's healthy. Setting boundaries, even blocking people, is not the same as ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint. You can be challenged without the challenger being an asshole, there's no point in engaging with assholes and you should absolutely block them.
  - hirundo 3y ago
    It's a Russell Conjugation: "I'm setting boundaries, you're ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint, they're denying my existence."
- n4r9 3y ago
  I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP. Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald Mosley.
tayo42 3y ago
"preempt common suggestions" is good advice for getting things done in a work environment too. avoid getting bogged down in all the distracting nonsense the same way internet people get distracted
teddyh 3y ago
[flagged]
- noelwelsh 3y ago
  Nah. There are certain things that one might post that are worth saying, because they push back against bullshit, but are certainly not worth discussing with peddlers of such bullshit. Just think of any conspiracy theory (e.g. anti-vaxers) as really obvious examples.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    Absolutely. And the specific example here—reminiscent of the dongle incident [0]—is definitely one of those. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes...
  - teddyh 3y ago
    So you claim the right to push back but also the right to block any responders who push back on your push back? Why the asymmetry? Because you’re right and they’re wrong? Sounds like people want to both get praise (or upvotes, depending on forum) for spouting the prevailing views (or the insular views of their bubble, whichever), but not having to deal with any inconvenient disagreements. Whatever that is, it is not a “conversation”.
    - noelwelsh 3y ago
      There actually are objective facts in this world. Not everything is just the "prevailing views". People who want to debate objective facts are not worth talking to. It's also not worth talking to people who don't engage in good faith. Finally, one's time is finite. Internet randoms don't have an inalienable right to take up anyone's time.
hackmiester 3y ago
> I think I didn’t mention -n in that post because at the time I didn’t know why the -n flag was useful (it’s useful because it turns off this annoying reverse DNS lookup that tcpdump does by default so you can see the IP addresses). Meanwhile, I remove -n from all tcpdump commands, because we use hostnames all the time at work, and I can remember them, and I can't remember a bunch of numbers.
OJFord 3y ago
> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anything and can guess the comments weren't written well - but I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication here, or maybe it's even a BrE/AmE thing, because 'to grope' around for something (often blindly in the dark or similar) isn't at all sexual, typically not even an animate thing you'd be groping for (e.g. a light switch) - and I'm fairly certain that that usage isn't by analogy to sexual assault. Or am I just repeating what's 'besides the point'? I don't think it is, words can have multiple meanings, be used in foul ways, but still be usable fairly and legitimately. 'I coloured in a picture' isn't 'gross'? My 'garden hoe' is fine?
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  The non-sexual meaning was almost certainly the intended one (because the sexual meaning makes no sense at all in that context). I think we can give the original developers a full pass and assign no blame. It may still be a good idea to change it (and, indeed, they have done so; it's just that Apple retains an older version for licensing reasons).
- wpietri 3y ago
  "Groping for a light switch" would be a valid phrase in American English as well. But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper I think that would be especially true for women, who, being the common targets of sexual groping, are going to be more aware of it. So even if it weren't my first association, I would still think it a reasonable association for women to make. As she says, original intent doesn't matter a ton. If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. Because what I care about is getting my point across. When I see instead strident defense of language that's bothersome to a historically marginalized group, I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change. A change I'll note the dig maintainers made back in 2017, so it's not like they care.
master-lincoln 3y ago
Given the headline, I was expecting this to be about tips for when writing a text in a public space, not for dealing with comments on texts you publicized.
karaterobot 3y ago
My rules for HN: * Assume the person responding to you hasn't read the article, and has only briefly scanned your comment while mentally composing their reply. * Anything abstract is going to get misunderstood; keep it concrete but vague. * There is no consistent relationship between quality of a comment and how people respond to it. * You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases. * When in doubt, collapse the thread and move on.
- mixedmath 3y ago
  I agree with these rules. I would add: * Always assume that no one will reply to a comment. Threads of comments are at most loosely based on a theme.
  - justin_oaks 3y ago
    Sometimes it's more disappointing to have nobody reply to a comment than for someone to respond negatively. And yet it's very common to get no replies to any given comment. And that fact in itself is a common reason for people not to reply. Because it's likely nobody will reply to them!
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases. Reminds me of a time I’d written a huge email - can’t remember now what had got me riled up. I showed it to a colleague to proof read and he just said “there’s only want way to improve this” and promptly hit the delete button…
- samwillis 3y ago
  This is a good list. > You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases.* I do this maybe as much as 1/4 comments. I would also add: - Don't get into a back and fourth with a single other user, it's generally boring and goes nowhere. - Don't rise to it if someone is trying to start an argument. - Be generous, assume you are misunderstanding an apparent negative comment. - Be complimentary, it makes peoples day.
lanstin 3y ago
>I mostly try to head this off by trying to be self-aware about my knowledge level on a topic, and saying “I’m not sure…” when I’m not sure about something. This excellent tactic for avoiding pointless debate and inviting helpful replies is sadly beyond many people in the software field. Software folks are used to the past where you could master things completely. With the continued growth of knowledge and the growth of the worlds complexity, it is quite impossible even for one super intelligent person that was present at the dawn of creation to keep up; failing to consider disagreement as a potentially useful pointer to the situation where you don't have as much knowledge as you think is a risk. (edited to add "is a risk" so that was a sentence.) I have seen multiple projects led by extremely smart people fail because they didn't listen to key information from less smart people that were nonetheless better informed about the particular technologies involved.
- grog454 3y ago
  Someone who thinks they know more than they do is a lot more dangerous than someone who doesn't know much but realizes it.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    It's quite common for someone to be just smart enough to be very dangerous but not smart enough to be very useful. Especially when it comes to sophisticated technology.
- gremlinunderway 3y ago
  Yeah, there's a really odd all or nothing kind of attitude with knowledge, experience or skill, as if "being smart" is like a linear growth Pokemon level-thing rather than being more like a radar chart of skills and experience. Which I find so odd and absurd in a profession that's full of esoteric knowledge. Being experienced and smart obviously is a huge asset, but if you just aren't familiar with library X but new guy with no experience has been doing nothing but library X, the latter guy is the one to take advice from.
  - 3y ago
nicbou 3y ago
This is solid advice. Having dealt with what the author experienced, I'd like to add some advice: - All online conversations are optional. You don't have to finish an exchange you don't enjoy. Leave idiots on read. - You can't win everyone over. Some people are deliberately contrarian. Many argue in bad faith. Don't try to turn a provocation into a discussion. - You don't owe your audience anything. They don't pay you.
Simon_O_Rourke 3y ago
In fairness, anyone getting enraged over articles about tcpdump online has way too much time on their hands.
gary_0 3y ago
Julia's writing also just has nice-person energy (without any of the forced cutesy-ness that some blogs suffer from) and I think she's getting back what she puts out. She's clearly a skilled writer who knows how to set a tone. The default tone people tend to assume on the Internet is more brash, and that's the source of a lot of unnecessary problems. On the other hand, I don't mind a little snark or old-school Torvalds-style feistiness either (forced politeness would be boring) but that's going to attract a rowdier crowd. Not everyone needs to emulate that style of discourse.
- hyperpape 3y ago
  Agreed, Julia's writing has always struck me as great, and I have her in my head as a model to aspire to. Despite that, I feel like my tone is always much more of a lecture than I wish it was.
javajosh 3y ago
Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" because it implies slavery. In the same way, she assumes someone defending the word is in favor of sexual assault. This is wrong and harmful, both to others and herself. To others because now they can't follow her posts; to herself because she's cut herself off from people who take the risk to argue something unpopular in good faith. This is how echo chambers form.
- NelsonMinar 3y ago
  Of all the good advice you say you read, why do you dwell on this one thing you don't like?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- justin_oaks 3y ago
  What you say makes a lot of sense. It would do us all well to seek to ask more questions and seek to understand before reaching for the block button. On the other hand, we all have limited time and patience for those who are likely arguing in bad faith. I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Even if the others may be arguing in good faith, this isn't a court of law here. We don't have to assume EVERYONE is innocent, especially if they're mixed in a crowd of hecklers. Each person has the option of using the block functionality as an automatic way to ignore sets of people, even if it catches the innocent.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    >I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Nor would I. But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism. It concerns me how easily we ostracize, how it cheapens people. This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it.

566 points by hasheddan 3y ago

These seem good. "Experience over opinions" was novel to me. Good one. I didn't like "pre-empt" because it results in tedious prose. She's obviously a skillful writer so it's smooth for her, but I cannot do it right. "Don't argue" is good. I fail this one frequently. The trick that works for me is to remind myself that I'm training someone for free. I can't say I'm very good at "analyse negative comments". Some sort of CBT technique is probably necessary here, but I feel the following in order: - "omg was I wrong?" followed by a quick check - if yes, good outcome. I can just correct. if no, causes anger I don't know why but being right and misunderstood is far more frustrating than being wrong. The latter triggers the "well, damn" dopamine response of discovery. But I'll keep pecking at the damned subject if I was right but the other guy refuses to understand it. This is my prime motivation for blocking on Twitter - and ideally people who misunderstand me frequently would block me too so I won't engage. The others are sensible and it's nice that they're listed, but I don't think they are novel (which is obviously fine - presumably everyone has a different novel set here).

janalsncm 3y ago

I have a personal blog where I write about strictly professional topics. I have another blog where I write about things under a pen name because they are opinions that some people might not like. Having a shadow identity gives me the space to be “wrong” if I need to be.

menacepineapple 3y ago

[dead]

guy98238710 3y ago

Is it just me or is this post screaming with self-consciousness and political correctness? Author is self-censoring policy suggestions and social/cultural insights, which I personally find interesting to write and read about, especially the weirder ones that provide transformational experience. And the dig-related blocking is just jarring. It makes it look like the author is quick on the trigger. PS: I just noticed that all comments in this thread that are even slightly critical are downvoted below zero. My own comment too. It's normal to see critical comments ignored (not upvoted) here, but downvoting anything remotely critical below zero is unusual even by HN standards. I guess a post about self-censorship attracts audience that desires this strange new self-conscious world where everyone has to nod to everyone else.

datagram 3y ago
The author is tactically avoiding discussions that she considers unproductive and does not want to participate in, hence the title of the blog post. > Is it just me or is this post screaming with self-consciousness and political correctness? Good writers always consider the way their choice of words will affect their audience. Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?
- guy98238710 3y ago
  > Good writers always consider the way their choice of words will affect their audience. It's not the choice of words. It's the choice of topics. > The author is tactically avoiding discussions that she considers unproductive The author is not avoiding certain topics because they are unproductive but rather because she fears backlash on social media.
wilde 3y ago
The author is saying that they want to write things that generate discussion threads of interest to them. You have different interests. Quick on the trigger is exactly the point of the dig example. The author is reminding you that you have control over what you see and you should use it. Most people have a set of topics they can’t constructively engage in debate over. That’s fine. I’d rather they conserve their energy and keep posting on topics where they can. — Upvote means I agree. Downvote means I disagree. You might have other opinions about what they should represent but the nature of voting systems is that they trend towards this. Like how I wish people would rate things 3/5 by default rather than 5/5. Sadly only IMDB ended up like this.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

oporquinho94 3y ago

Stories are definitely the best way to get something across - also the content i enjoy the most reading since it's usually high quality and personal writing. Much more interesting than clickbait thought pieces.

andai 3y ago

Wait until she hears about finger...

neerajk 3y ago

Embarrassingly, I was today years old when I learnt that dig used to be a) an acronym and b) what is stood for

nurbel 3y ago
and ping as well (learnt that from the mastodon thread)!
- ghaff 3y ago
  Never knew that although it seems like the acronym was contrived after the obvious "ping" (as in sonar) was coined.
- medler 3y ago
  Ping was originally named after sonar pings. Then later some guy came up with a weird acronym for a thing he did not invent. We don’t have to acknowledge it as a legitimate acronym. And as far as I can tell, the backronym is not a part of ping man pages, unlike with dig
hk__2 3y ago
I didn’t knew that either, and there’s nothing embarrassing about it: pretty much every CLI tool that doesn’t have a clear name is an acronym (grep, cd, pwd, dd, yacc, etc).

mjb 3y ago

This is really great, actionable, sensible, advice for folks who write on the internet. It agrees with my experiences, too. On the other hand, it's sad that the culture we have built on the internet forces talented people like Julia to censor themselves and narrow the scope of their writing. > So I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention if I don’t want to start the same discussion about that thing for the 50th time. Somehow we've built a culture where its socially acceptable, and even rewarded, to behave online in ways that would never be acceptable in other social settings. The exact flavors of that on HN, Slashdot, Twitter, Tumblr, etc are different, but the core issue is the same everywhere.

omoikane 3y ago
> I have a weird catalog in my head of things not to mention An optimistic view is that people maintain blacklists of topics to avoid, as opposed to whitelists of noncontroversial topics that they are allowed to talk about ("Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?").
nonethewiser 3y ago
> The exact flavors of that on HN, Slashdot, Twitter, Tumblr, etc are different, but the core issue is the same everywhere. I think there are three main factors. Some cases are more one than the other. 1. Anonymity. Many places people know who you really are. Your family, friends, and coworkers arent judging you. 2. Using a mob for cover. As an analogy, its a lot safer to throw a Molotov cocktail from a crowd then by yourself. 3. No empathy for avatars. You aren’t talking to a real person, who you would empathize a lot more with. After writing these, they are largely different shades of anonymity.
- verve_rat 3y ago
  Ah, the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
ghaff 3y ago

tomrod 3y ago

I really enjoy her writing. I hope one day to have an audience that keeps me at my computer a few hours after posting!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wrp 3y ago

Summary of her rules for defensive posting: 1. Talk about facts 2. Tell stories 3. Ask technical questions 4. Fix mistakes 5. Ask for examples, not opinions 6. Start with a little context 7. Avoid flamebait triggers 8. Preempt common suggestions 9. Ignore people who challenge your viewpoint (my interpretation) 10. Don't pursue arguments 11. Pay attention to critical feedback Number 9 is I think not as defensible as the rest. These are pretty much the rules I've adopted for posting on HN.

tayo42 3y ago
how did you come up with number 9 from this post? fwiw, all the people who dont read the articles, 9 isnt in there. its actually "set some boundaries"
- wrp 3y ago
  Fair criticism. I should have been more clear.
tristor 3y ago
Number 9 isn't there, and in my personal interactions right here on HN, Julie doesn't ignore people who challenge her viewpoint. She says "Set Some Boundaries" and in fact doing so is not only necessary, it's healthy. Setting boundaries, even blocking people, is not the same as ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint. You can be challenged without the challenger being an asshole, there's no point in engaging with assholes and you should absolutely block them.
- hirundo 3y ago
  It's a Russell Conjugation: "I'm setting boundaries, you're ignoring people who challenge your viewpoint, they're denying my existence."
n4r9 3y ago
I think you're being a little unfair about #9. Setting boundaries is different to ignoring challenges. If I made a comment about politics and someone demanded that I present a solid case that black people have ever been mistreated, obviously it's fine to ignore. It's tangential and agenda-driven, just like the example in OP. Some conflicts are simply not worth pursuing. Even Bertrand Russell refused to debate Oswald Mosley.

tayo42 3y ago

"preempt common suggestions" is good advice for getting things done in a work environment too. avoid getting bogged down in all the distracting nonsense the same way internet people get distracted

teddyh 3y ago

[flagged]

noelwelsh 3y ago
Nah. There are certain things that one might post that are worth saying, because they push back against bullshit, but are certainly not worth discussing with peddlers of such bullshit. Just think of any conspiracy theory (e.g. anti-vaxers) as really obvious examples.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  Absolutely. And the specific example here—reminiscent of the dongle incident [0]—is definitely one of those. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes...
- teddyh 3y ago
  So you claim the right to push back but also the right to block any responders who push back on your push back? Why the asymmetry? Because you’re right and they’re wrong? Sounds like people want to both get praise (or upvotes, depending on forum) for spouting the prevailing views (or the insular views of their bubble, whichever), but not having to deal with any inconvenient disagreements. Whatever that is, it is not a “conversation”.
  - noelwelsh 3y ago
    There actually are objective facts in this world. Not everything is just the "prevailing views". People who want to debate objective facts are not worth talking to. It's also not worth talking to people who don't engage in good faith. Finally, one's time is finite. Internet randoms don't have an inalienable right to take up anyone's time.

hackmiester 3y ago

> I think I didn’t mention -n in that post because at the time I didn’t know why the -n flag was useful (it’s useful because it turns off this annoying reverse DNS lookup that tcpdump does by default so you can see the IP addresses). Meanwhile, I remove -n from all tcpdump commands, because we use hostnames all the time at work, and I can remember them, and I can't remember a bunch of numbers.

OJFord 3y ago

> Recently on Mastodon I complained about some gross terminology that I’d just noticed in the dig man page. A few dudes in the replies asked me to prove that the original author intended it to be offensive (which of course is besides [sic] the point) or tried to explain to me why it actually wasn’t a problem. > So I blocked a few people and wrote a quick post: Of course I understand no responsibility to 'prove' anything and can guess the comments weren't written well - but I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication here, or maybe it's even a BrE/AmE thing, because 'to grope' around for something (often blindly in the dark or similar) isn't at all sexual, typically not even an animate thing you'd be groping for (e.g. a light switch) - and I'm fairly certain that that usage isn't by analogy to sexual assault. Or am I just repeating what's 'besides the point'? I don't think it is, words can have multiple meanings, be used in foul ways, but still be usable fairly and legitimately. 'I coloured in a picture' isn't 'gross'? My 'garden hoe' is fine?

TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
The non-sexual meaning was almost certainly the intended one (because the sexual meaning makes no sense at all in that context). I think we can give the original developers a full pass and assign no blame. It may still be a good idea to change it (and, indeed, they have done so; it's just that Apple retains an older version for licensing reasons).
wpietri 3y ago
"Groping for a light switch" would be a valid phrase in American English as well. But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper I think that would be especially true for women, who, being the common targets of sexual groping, are going to be more aware of it. So even if it weren't my first association, I would still think it a reasonable association for women to make. As she says, original intent doesn't matter a ton. If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. Because what I care about is getting my point across. When I see instead strident defense of language that's bothersome to a historically marginalized group, I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change. A change I'll note the dig maintainers made back in 2017, so it's not like they care.

master-lincoln 3y ago

Given the headline, I was expecting this to be about tips for when writing a text in a public space, not for dealing with comments on texts you publicized.

karaterobot 3y ago

My rules for HN: * Assume the person responding to you hasn't read the article, and has only briefly scanned your comment while mentally composing their reply. * Anything abstract is going to get misunderstood; keep it concrete but vague. * There is no consistent relationship between quality of a comment and how people respond to it. * You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases. * When in doubt, collapse the thread and move on.

mixedmath 3y ago
I agree with these rules. I would add: * Always assume that no one will reply to a comment. Threads of comments are at most loosely based on a theme.
- justin_oaks 3y ago
  Sometimes it's more disappointing to have nobody reply to a comment than for someone to respond negatively. And yet it's very common to get no replies to any given comment. And that fact in itself is a common reason for people not to reply. Because it's likely nobody will reply to them!
iamflimflam1 3y ago
You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases. Reminds me of a time I’d written a huge email - can’t remember now what had got me riled up. I showed it to a colleague to proof read and he just said “there’s only want way to improve this” and promptly hit the delete button…
samwillis 3y ago
This is a good list. > You can write a reply and then erase it without sending, and that's the best thing to do in most cases.* I do this maybe as much as 1/4 comments. I would also add: - Don't get into a back and fourth with a single other user, it's generally boring and goes nowhere. - Don't rise to it if someone is trying to start an argument. - Be generous, assume you are misunderstanding an apparent negative comment. - Be complimentary, it makes peoples day.

lanstin 3y ago

>I mostly try to head this off by trying to be self-aware about my knowledge level on a topic, and saying “I’m not sure…” when I’m not sure about something. This excellent tactic for avoiding pointless debate and inviting helpful replies is sadly beyond many people in the software field. Software folks are used to the past where you could master things completely. With the continued growth of knowledge and the growth of the worlds complexity, it is quite impossible even for one super intelligent person that was present at the dawn of creation to keep up; failing to consider disagreement as a potentially useful pointer to the situation where you don't have as much knowledge as you think is a risk. (edited to add "is a risk" so that was a sentence.) I have seen multiple projects led by extremely smart people fail because they didn't listen to key information from less smart people that were nonetheless better informed about the particular technologies involved.

grog454 3y ago
Someone who thinks they know more than they do is a lot more dangerous than someone who doesn't know much but realizes it.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  It's quite common for someone to be just smart enough to be very dangerous but not smart enough to be very useful. Especially when it comes to sophisticated technology.
gremlinunderway 3y ago
Yeah, there's a really odd all or nothing kind of attitude with knowledge, experience or skill, as if "being smart" is like a linear growth Pokemon level-thing rather than being more like a radar chart of skills and experience. Which I find so odd and absurd in a profession that's full of esoteric knowledge. Being experienced and smart obviously is a huge asset, but if you just aren't familiar with library X but new guy with no experience has been doing nothing but library X, the latter guy is the one to take advice from.
- 3y ago

nicbou 3y ago

This is solid advice. Having dealt with what the author experienced, I'd like to add some advice: - All online conversations are optional. You don't have to finish an exchange you don't enjoy. Leave idiots on read. - You can't win everyone over. Some people are deliberately contrarian. Many argue in bad faith. Don't try to turn a provocation into a discussion. - You don't owe your audience anything. They don't pay you.

Simon_O_Rourke 3y ago

In fairness, anyone getting enraged over articles about tcpdump online has way too much time on their hands.

gary_0 3y ago

Julia's writing also just has nice-person energy (without any of the forced cutesy-ness that some blogs suffer from) and I think she's getting back what she puts out. She's clearly a skilled writer who knows how to set a tone. The default tone people tend to assume on the Internet is more brash, and that's the source of a lot of unnecessary problems. On the other hand, I don't mind a little snark or old-school Torvalds-style feistiness either (forced politeness would be boring) but that's going to attract a rowdier crowd. Not everyone needs to emulate that style of discourse.

hyperpape 3y ago
Agreed, Julia's writing has always struck me as great, and I have her in my head as a model to aspire to. Despite that, I feel like my tone is always much more of a lecture than I wish it was.

javajosh 3y ago

Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" because it implies slavery. In the same way, she assumes someone defending the word is in favor of sexual assault. This is wrong and harmful, both to others and herself. To others because now they can't follow her posts; to herself because she's cut herself off from people who take the risk to argue something unpopular in good faith. This is how echo chambers form.

NelsonMinar 3y ago
Of all the good advice you say you read, why do you dwell on this one thing you don't like?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
justin_oaks 3y ago
What you say makes a lot of sense. It would do us all well to seek to ask more questions and seek to understand before reaching for the block button. On the other hand, we all have limited time and patience for those who are likely arguing in bad faith. I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Even if the others may be arguing in good faith, this isn't a court of law here. We don't have to assume EVERYONE is innocent, especially if they're mixed in a crowd of hecklers. Each person has the option of using the block functionality as an automatic way to ignore sets of people, even if it catches the innocent.
- javajosh 3y ago
  >I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Nor would I. But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism. It concerns me how easily we ostracize, how it cheapens people. This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it.