3 ms·

um, I'm not sure exactly why what motivated that comment, but its extremely possible to believe every word there from a purely logical perspective, as opposed t

um, I'm not sure exactly why what motivated that comment, but its extremely possible to believe every word there from a purely logical perspective, as opposed to an emotional one. yes we shouldn't post personal attacks, but saying 'Zuckerberg got lucky' and 'seems to chase the latest "it" thing' doesn't need to qualify as a personal attack. these can just be normal observations. see I wouldn't say the same things about sama, because I don't think they're true, and I dislike the both of them. as for the newsguidelines, I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things

dang 4mo ago
Much of the language in the GP is pejorative, and therefore emotional, and therefore not possible to treat "from a purely logical perspective". I doubt that a purely logical evaluation is possible of any statement at all, outside of formal languages, but let's not digress. (Or maybe we should! it's at least more interesting to talk about than how $Billionaire-CEO just got lucky, lacks talent, or is a charlatan.) > I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things Yes, that's possible, but if one is venting indignation then one is doing something different. To digress again: "intellectual curiosity" is a funny phrase, one I don't entirely care for - it verges on pretentious and reminds me of Hemingway's ten-dollar words*. But I've stuck with it because you can't just say "curiosity", because there are other kinds of curiosity and they are quite different. * https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/26/dictionary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/26/dictionary/
- win311fwg 4mo ago
  > Much of the language in the GP is pejorative, and therefore emotional It was stated to be an opinion and opinions are inherently emotional, so that goes without saying, but it is a fact that the account holds that opinion and learning about that fact should spark intellectual curiosity. It is a property of the state of universe along with all the others. There is no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity is limited to only a subset of universe properties. Perhaps what this reveals is that HN does not attract a curious audience (anymore)? Does that suggest the guidelines are not in tune with the wants and needs of the user base? Trying to force curiosity to emerge does not go far if the users aren't curious to begin with.
  - dang 4mo ago
    > should spark intellectual curiosity Maybe it should, but you don't need much experience with the internet to know that a comment like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48648885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48648885 doesn't and won't. There's no need to look for deeper phenomena like mysterious shifts in the audience.
    - win311fwg 4mo ago
      I suggest the proof is already to the contrary. To each their own, but I have found this to be quite intellectually gratifying. There are some compelling discussions taking place here, including but not limited to this one, that have not got caught up in indignation like originally hypothesized that they would. The properties of the state of the universe are effectively infinite. Not all users will find curiosity in the same properties. It is understandable that you may not find the same gratification here. There is still no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity must be limited to a subset of those properties, is there?

dang 4mo ago

Much of the language in the GP is pejorative, and therefore emotional, and therefore not possible to treat "from a purely logical perspective". I doubt that a purely logical evaluation is possible of any statement at all, outside of formal languages, but let's not digress. (Or maybe we should! it's at least more interesting to talk about than how $Billionaire-CEO just got lucky, lacks talent, or is a charlatan.) > I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things Yes, that's possible, but if one is venting indignation then one is doing something different. To digress again: "intellectual curiosity" is a funny phrase, one I don't entirely care for - it verges on pretentious and reminds me of Hemingway's ten-dollar words*. But I've stuck with it because you can't just say "curiosity", because there are other kinds of curiosity and they are quite different. * https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/26/dictionary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/26/dictionary/

win311fwg 4mo ago
> Much of the language in the GP is pejorative, and therefore emotional It was stated to be an opinion and opinions are inherently emotional, so that goes without saying, but it is a fact that the account holds that opinion and learning about that fact should spark intellectual curiosity. It is a property of the state of universe along with all the others. There is no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity is limited to only a subset of universe properties. Perhaps what this reveals is that HN does not attract a curious audience (anymore)? Does that suggest the guidelines are not in tune with the wants and needs of the user base? Trying to force curiosity to emerge does not go far if the users aren't curious to begin with.
- dang 4mo ago
  > should spark intellectual curiosity Maybe it should, but you don't need much experience with the internet to know that a comment like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48648885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48648885 doesn't and won't. There's no need to look for deeper phenomena like mysterious shifts in the audience.
  - win311fwg 4mo ago
    I suggest the proof is already to the contrary. To each their own, but I have found this to be quite intellectually gratifying. There are some compelling discussions taking place here, including but not limited to this one, that have not got caught up in indignation like originally hypothesized that they would. The properties of the state of the universe are effectively infinite. Not all users will find curiosity in the same properties. It is understandable that you may not find the same gratification here. There is still no reason to believe that intellectual curiosity must be limited to a subset of those properties, is there?