7 ms·

He may be recognizable in a design discussion on HN, but hardly out of this context. Same goes for this guy. That of course is not to say that these sorts of e

He may be recognizable in a design discussion on HN, but hardly out of this context. Same goes for this guy. That of course is not to say that these sorts of efforts should be avoided, but I do think you are overestimating their impact.

wilfra 14y ago
I think you are underestimating the impact of being well known on HN for something like that. Nearly everybody who matters reads this site at least sometimes.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Nearly everyone who matters reads this site at least sometimes and might possibly come across a discussion about a 3 year old article.
  - pbreit 14y ago
    This is totally false. I would say hat few who "matter" ever visit or participate here. Of the 1000 or so acquaintances of mine in the Bay Area tech industry, man who "matter" I'd say 50, tops, have ever spent much time here and fewer have posted.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      That's precisely my point :-)
- jsprink_banned 14y ago
  Although jsprinkles got slowbanned and hellbanned (still unsure why but cannot be bothered; more on that later), I had to create another account just to respond to this. This comment encapsulates, in amazingly succinct fashion, everything that is wrong with Hacker News and the people that participate in this community. I can translate "[n]early everybody who matters" in this context, and it means a subset of Silicon Valley that thinks it is the entire universe. Hacker News these days is TMZ for Silicon Valley, with the occasional dash of Lisp thrown in. Conversations are usually way off-base and are wildly misrepresentative of reality in many cases. Half the discussions are folks opining on how poorly someone is running a business after digesting several years of Hacker News articles during their work hours at someone else's company, with no actual experience at the helm. I went after one guy for proclaiming that Tim Cook hasn't done shit for Apple in his entire career there, and I couldn't help but imagine the kind of person behind such a comment and it wasn't a pretty picture. The other day's thread about the sale of Sortfolio is a great example of this. The entire thread was arguing with DHH and Jason Fried about their own company's transaction. No, really[1]. There are exceptions. There is the occasional absolutely phenomenal and industry-affecting discussion here. There are people that use their "Hacker News reputation" for good. However, standing atop a pillar of arrogance as tall as "everybody who matters is here" just screams a complete disconnect with how our industry actually works. In the grand scheme of information technology, startups are tiny little mosquitoes that are, with few exceptions, swatted to death quickly and quietly. The occasional mosquito that kills a human, though, is the one that gets press and pays off its investors mightily. That's the golden mosquito, and a whole tribe of mosquito farmers has popped up in pursuit of their payoff. However, simply because a couple mosquitoes have succeeded at killing a human does not, I repeat does not, indicate that the entire world of disease revolves around mosquitoes, nor that a forum discussing mosquitoes is representative of epidemiology as a whole. The average startup employs what, a dozen people? IBM employs more than four hundred thousand[2]. And before you turn around and mock IBM, they've made enough money to research and do great things[3] while your startup is still struggling to come to terms with burn rate in search of that ever-elusive revenue. Please dig yourself out of the hole of narcissism and reconnect with reality. Hacker News is not the entire world, and more than half of the movers and shakers in the industry have probably never even glanced at a comment thread. I will ever remain relieved if that fact does not change. An aside which reinforces that point: After getting hellbanned, I stopped worrying about combating stupidity in Hacker News threads. I stopped reading most of them, to be quite honest. I relaunched my blog and wrote a long essay I've been meaning to write about how Python decorators work[4] which before, I could never seem to find the time for. I adopted an ethos of using my time for sharing knowledge instead of arguing about pointless shit, like Sortfolio's acquisition price or what the meaning of Steve Jobs parking in a handicap space is or what some UI designer named Dustin Curtis thinks about Quora's latest funding round. I'm learning to listen to what people have to say rather than waiting for my turn to speak, just to refute my conversational opponent's take on Microsoft as if it matters or has any bearing on my life whatsoever. The effect that removing frequent Hacker News contribution has had on me as a person is nothing short of extraordinary, so if "everybody that matters" is here, God help our industry. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191233 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191233 [2]: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/performers/companies/biggest/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/perfo... [3]: http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html [4]: http://jedsmith.org/post/python-decorators.html http://jedsmith.org/post/python-decorators.html
  - wilfra 14y ago
    Startups create the future, not companies like IBM. In the context of my comment, people in the orbit of world-changing startups are the ones that matter. You make some interesting points though. Good post.
    - cdf 14y ago
      I am obviously biased, but I am terrified, TERRIFIED, if a company with Microsoft's history has a say in delivering the future. I dont want that future. Microsoft has a very very long way to rehabilitate their image for their long history of bad behaviour.
      - Spearchucker 14y ago
        Not biased so much, maybe, but definitely subjective. I have more faith in Microsoft than I do in any other big tech company. It's easy to forget that any commercial organisation's mission is to make money, which makes it inherently self-serving. Microsoft, Red Hat, Google, Apple, Oracle, Facebook and so on all exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products, or to offer services we might find useful. Or to support us in any way. Not so.
        wilfra 14y ago
        "...Facebook...exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products," Zuck specifically said this isn't true in his letter to shareholders. They make money so they can build, they don't build to make money. If you simply observe his own lifestyle and the choices he's made with Facebook, it is pretty clear money means very little to him and that he absolutely loves running Facebook. Given that he can veto anything anybody else ever says about the company for the rest of his life, I am inclined to believe him. Wall Street seems to believe him too, thats why FB's stock is not doing so hot. They know FB's dictator despises them and doesn't care about making them money.
        14y ago

wilfra 14y ago

I think you are underestimating the impact of being well known on HN for something like that. Nearly everybody who matters reads this site at least sometimes.

chris_wot 14y ago
Nearly everyone who matters reads this site at least sometimes and might possibly come across a discussion about a 3 year old article.
- pbreit 14y ago
  This is totally false. I would say hat few who "matter" ever visit or participate here. Of the 1000 or so acquaintances of mine in the Bay Area tech industry, man who "matter" I'd say 50, tops, have ever spent much time here and fewer have posted.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    That's precisely my point :-)
jsprink_banned 14y ago
Although jsprinkles got slowbanned and hellbanned (still unsure why but cannot be bothered; more on that later), I had to create another account just to respond to this. This comment encapsulates, in amazingly succinct fashion, everything that is wrong with Hacker News and the people that participate in this community. I can translate "[n]early everybody who matters" in this context, and it means a subset of Silicon Valley that thinks it is the entire universe. Hacker News these days is TMZ for Silicon Valley, with the occasional dash of Lisp thrown in. Conversations are usually way off-base and are wildly misrepresentative of reality in many cases. Half the discussions are folks opining on how poorly someone is running a business after digesting several years of Hacker News articles during their work hours at someone else's company, with no actual experience at the helm. I went after one guy for proclaiming that Tim Cook hasn't done shit for Apple in his entire career there, and I couldn't help but imagine the kind of person behind such a comment and it wasn't a pretty picture. The other day's thread about the sale of Sortfolio is a great example of this. The entire thread was arguing with DHH and Jason Fried about their own company's transaction. No, really[1]. There are exceptions. There is the occasional absolutely phenomenal and industry-affecting discussion here. There are people that use their "Hacker News reputation" for good. However, standing atop a pillar of arrogance as tall as "everybody who matters is here" just screams a complete disconnect with how our industry actually works. In the grand scheme of information technology, startups are tiny little mosquitoes that are, with few exceptions, swatted to death quickly and quietly. The occasional mosquito that kills a human, though, is the one that gets press and pays off its investors mightily. That's the golden mosquito, and a whole tribe of mosquito farmers has popped up in pursuit of their payoff. However, simply because a couple mosquitoes have succeeded at killing a human does not, I repeat does not, indicate that the entire world of disease revolves around mosquitoes, nor that a forum discussing mosquitoes is representative of epidemiology as a whole. The average startup employs what, a dozen people? IBM employs more than four hundred thousand[2]. And before you turn around and mock IBM, they've made enough money to research and do great things[3] while your startup is still struggling to come to terms with burn rate in search of that ever-elusive revenue. Please dig yourself out of the hole of narcissism and reconnect with reality. Hacker News is not the entire world, and more than half of the movers and shakers in the industry have probably never even glanced at a comment thread. I will ever remain relieved if that fact does not change. An aside which reinforces that point: After getting hellbanned, I stopped worrying about combating stupidity in Hacker News threads. I stopped reading most of them, to be quite honest. I relaunched my blog and wrote a long essay I've been meaning to write about how Python decorators work[4] which before, I could never seem to find the time for. I adopted an ethos of using my time for sharing knowledge instead of arguing about pointless shit, like Sortfolio's acquisition price or what the meaning of Steve Jobs parking in a handicap space is or what some UI designer named Dustin Curtis thinks about Quora's latest funding round. I'm learning to listen to what people have to say rather than waiting for my turn to speak, just to refute my conversational opponent's take on Microsoft as if it matters or has any bearing on my life whatsoever. The effect that removing frequent Hacker News contribution has had on me as a person is nothing short of extraordinary, so if "everybody that matters" is here, God help our industry. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191233 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191233 [2]: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/performers/companies/biggest/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/perfo... [3]: http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html [4]: http://jedsmith.org/post/python-decorators.html http://jedsmith.org/post/python-decorators.html
- wilfra 14y ago
  Startups create the future, not companies like IBM. In the context of my comment, people in the orbit of world-changing startups are the ones that matter. You make some interesting points though. Good post.
  - cdf 14y ago
    I am obviously biased, but I am terrified, TERRIFIED, if a company with Microsoft's history has a say in delivering the future. I dont want that future. Microsoft has a very very long way to rehabilitate their image for their long history of bad behaviour.
    - Spearchucker 14y ago
      Not biased so much, maybe, but definitely subjective. I have more faith in Microsoft than I do in any other big tech company. It's easy to forget that any commercial organisation's mission is to make money, which makes it inherently self-serving. Microsoft, Red Hat, Google, Apple, Oracle, Facebook and so on all exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products, or to offer services we might find useful. Or to support us in any way. Not so.
      - wilfra 14y ago
        "...Facebook...exist to make their shareholders rich. And yet we seem to think that they exist to make cool products," Zuck specifically said this isn't true in his letter to shareholders. They make money so they can build, they don't build to make money. If you simply observe his own lifestyle and the choices he's made with Facebook, it is pretty clear money means very little to him and that he absolutely loves running Facebook. Given that he can veto anything anybody else ever says about the company for the rest of his life, I am inclined to believe him. Wall Street seems to believe him too, thats why FB's stock is not doing so hot. They know FB's dictator despises them and doesn't care about making them money.
        14y ago