4 ms·
As a bystander this seems accurate, but at the end of the article Nate himself states that he has little hope that it will convince people on Twitter/X. It's mo
by MauranKilom 3y ago
As a bystander this seems accurate, but at the end of the article Nate himself states that he has little hope that it will convince people on Twitter/X. It's more about credibility to his own readership, I suppose.
- onthecanposting 3y agoI think he's writing to convince himself more than his readers, if he has any.
- SilverBirch 3y agoLook him up, he has readers.
- abirch 3y agoGetting in an argument (vs disagreement) in real life is worthless. Getting into an argument on the Internet has even less value. Personally I think this was an easy article for him to write because he already had the data and he wants more subscribers (please take this take as neutral opinion and not a dis to Silver)
- stu2b50 3y agoThat depends on what the goal is. It's worthless if you're trying to convince the other side. But in many cases, you're actually trying to convince the audience, and certainly for something like a blogpost here, I'd argue that it is not only the case, but successful, since at minimum we know it got posted to hackernews and has traction.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoIt's worthless if your goal is to influence your direct opposition. It's not worthless if your goal is to influence the curious on-lookers.
- sanderjd 3y agoYep, always good to keep in mind that the audience for public discussion is not the small number of people you're discussing with, but the large number of people reading the discussion.