5 ms·

I like the definition of social rules [0]. I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former. I have my own

I like the definition of social rules [0]. I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former. I have my own thanks to give to HN. It's connected me to interesting people, online and IRL. It's led to some very strong friendships. It's led me to multiple job opportunities, and usually the better ones. It's changing of course, but I've had a great time in this community so far, and that deserves thanks. 0: https://www.recurse.com/social-rules https://www.recurse.com/social-rules

ghostly_s 3mo ago
> I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former. Presume you're referring to [1], not the page you linked, and one might be inclined to accuse you of __feigning surprise__ but if not: using the roof is a quite common expectation in mid-rise buildings in big cities like NY, though not usually in a building you don't yourself own/lease in. 1. https://www.recurse.com/code-of-conduct https://www.recurse.com/code-of-conduct
- golly_ned 3mo ago
  Why would you think they are talking about an entirely different page and topic?
  - sincerely 3mo ago
    Well there is no “roof rule” on the page they linked
    - serial_dev 3mo ago
      It might have been AutoCorrect, and the “social rules” the original comment makes hundred times more sense that way
      - dxdm 3mo ago
        The social rules page links to the code of conduct, which contains a rule about the roof. The most sensible interpretation to me is that OP wanted to comment on both, possibly forgetting that they had to follow a link to the roof rule, or maybe actively considering both pages to be a single unit. That would be the"strongest interpretation" of OPs comment, which the local guidelines prefer us to respond to.
        andrew_eu 3mo ago
        I'm honestly surprised how controversial this sub thread became. To put it to rest -- this is indeed correct. I commented on the roof rule but didn't link to the code of conduct because doing so didn't really seem to add anything that a reader couldn't find on their own.
      - zahlman 3mo ago
        I can't imagine what word might have been autocorrected to "roof" that would make more sense here.
      - albedoa 3mo ago
        Pause and consider the joint probability that anything was autocorrected to "roof rule" and that it just so happens to be the name of one of their rules.
  - albedoa 3mo ago
    OP referenced the roof rule by name in the OP, which was quoted in the comment that you are replying to. What do you mean "an entirely different topic"?
opem 3mo ago
How did you connect with people from hn and made irl friendships with them?
- andrew_eu 3mo ago
  A few times I've contacted people who posted an interesting Show HN and it often led to interesting conversations. I've also found multiple roles through "Who's Hiring" threads over the years, and those all became irl.
  - opem 3mo ago
    I see, that is something I have always held off myself from doing. Glad to hear that people reply!
nchmy 3mo ago
I'm surprised by the "you are not allowed to be surprised, ever" rule. It puts me off of recurse entirely. I shouldn't even need to explain why as it should be self-evident that policing/banning a completely natural and sometimes highly beneficial emotion/reaction is beyond problematic. It seems like an XY problem - they implemented it to solve a genuine problem, without understanding the problem. Like, the canonical example they give is > Dan: What’s the command line? > Carol: Wait, you’ve never used the command line? Surely everyone can imagine at least two versions of Carol. 1. Condescending and dismissive. Indeed, that's not behaviour anyone should be tolerating. 2. Thrilled to be able to introduce someone to something new. She might follow that question up with "oh come on over here, let me show you! This will change your life." and proceed to try to teach terminal stuff. Isn't this the best sort of teacher, someone who is infectiously passionate about something? Dan may still respond negatively to Carol2, but that's Dan's problem - he needs a therapist of some sort to address whatever insecurities he has. Now, you might say "The rule is about FEIGNED surprise", which is Carol1. But it explicitly says > When someone acts surprised when you don’t know something, it doesn’t matter whether they’re pretending to be surprised or actually surprised. Then goes on to describe the version of Dan that needs therapy > The effect is the same: the next time you have a question, you’re more likely to keep your mouth shut. An accurate name for this rule would be no acting surprised when someone doesn’t know something, No, that's not how I or any other well-adjusted person would react. A better name for the rule is "don't be a dick. Everyone is here to help each other learn and grow" (and there might be a separate rule/policy/resource about how people who have not yet learned how to positively and productively control their emotions - which I am not denigrating, simply pointing out reality - can seek assistance with that as well). In the end, IT DEPENDS. But there's apparently no room for such nuance at Recurse...
- dxdm 3mo ago
  There's no rule against being surprised, and especially not against _ever_ being surprised. They are asking people not to express surprise, real or not, when responding to a question, as a courtesy to the person asking. Like: Keep your surprise in check in situations when it's not helping. I don't think that's too much to ask, just like it's generally considered preferable to not chew with your mouth open when in company, or talk to people with food in your mouth. They even acknowledge that they expect these rules to not be followed all the time. I'm surprised that you read it as a general prohibition of being surprised. ;) Edit: Sorry, wrote my reply before I saw your substantial edits where you clarify your position and distinguish between "positive" and "negative" surprise. I agree there's a better way express surprise. The rule clearly wants people to avoid putting other people down by creating a feeling of "wow, how can you not know this". That's the spirit of the rule, and I guess it could be expressed better. I don't think they'd have a problem if someone managed to turn the surprise into a positive, but to do that, it's good to be mindful that it's often perceived negatively.
amelius 3mo ago
I wonder if they have a rule on using AI and what their general stance is there.
- ayewo 3mo ago
  They do. It’s a reasonable stance [1] that is aptly captured by this quote: “I doubt very much if it is possible to teach anyone to understand anything, that is to say, to see how various parts of it relate to all the other parts, to have a model of the structure in one’s mind. We can give other people names, and lists, but we cannot give them our mental structures; they must build their own.” — John Holt 1: https://www.recurse.com/blog/191-developing-our-position-on-ai https://www.recurse.com/blog/191-developing-our-position-on-...
elric 3mo ago
I love the "no backseat driving" rule. That kind of behaviour is what caused me to stop engaging with StackOverflow.

ghostly_s 3mo ago

> I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former. Presume you're referring to [1], not the page you linked, and one might be inclined to accuse you of __feigning surprise__ but if not: using the roof is a quite common expectation in mid-rise buildings in big cities like NY, though not usually in a building you don't yourself own/lease in. 1. https://www.recurse.com/code-of-conduct https://www.recurse.com/code-of-conduct

golly_ned 3mo ago
Why would you think they are talking about an entirely different page and topic?
- sincerely 3mo ago
  Well there is no “roof rule” on the page they linked
  - serial_dev 3mo ago
    It might have been AutoCorrect, and the “social rules” the original comment makes hundred times more sense that way
    - dxdm 3mo ago
      The social rules page links to the code of conduct, which contains a rule about the roof. The most sensible interpretation to me is that OP wanted to comment on both, possibly forgetting that they had to follow a link to the roof rule, or maybe actively considering both pages to be a single unit. That would be the"strongest interpretation" of OPs comment, which the local guidelines prefer us to respond to.
      - andrew_eu 3mo ago
        I'm honestly surprised how controversial this sub thread became. To put it to rest -- this is indeed correct. I commented on the roof rule but didn't link to the code of conduct because doing so didn't really seem to add anything that a reader couldn't find on their own.
    - zahlman 3mo ago
      I can't imagine what word might have been autocorrected to "roof" that would make more sense here.
    - albedoa 3mo ago
      Pause and consider the joint probability that anything was autocorrected to "roof rule" and that it just so happens to be the name of one of their rules.
- albedoa 3mo ago
  OP referenced the roof rule by name in the OP, which was quoted in the comment that you are replying to. What do you mean "an entirely different topic"?

opem 3mo ago

How did you connect with people from hn and made irl friendships with them?

andrew_eu 3mo ago
A few times I've contacted people who posted an interesting Show HN and it often led to interesting conversations. I've also found multiple roles through "Who's Hiring" threads over the years, and those all became irl.
- opem 3mo ago
  I see, that is something I have always held off myself from doing. Glad to hear that people reply!

nchmy 3mo ago

I'm surprised by the "you are not allowed to be surprised, ever" rule. It puts me off of recurse entirely. I shouldn't even need to explain why as it should be self-evident that policing/banning a completely natural and sometimes highly beneficial emotion/reaction is beyond problematic. It seems like an XY problem - they implemented it to solve a genuine problem, without understanding the problem. Like, the canonical example they give is > Dan: What’s the command line? > Carol: Wait, you’ve never used the command line? Surely everyone can imagine at least two versions of Carol. 1. Condescending and dismissive. Indeed, that's not behaviour anyone should be tolerating. 2. Thrilled to be able to introduce someone to something new. She might follow that question up with "oh come on over here, let me show you! This will change your life." and proceed to try to teach terminal stuff. Isn't this the best sort of teacher, someone who is infectiously passionate about something? Dan may still respond negatively to Carol2, but that's Dan's problem - he needs a therapist of some sort to address whatever insecurities he has. Now, you might say "The rule is about FEIGNED surprise", which is Carol1. But it explicitly says > When someone acts surprised when you don’t know something, it doesn’t matter whether they’re pretending to be surprised or actually surprised. Then goes on to describe the version of Dan that needs therapy > The effect is the same: the next time you have a question, you’re more likely to keep your mouth shut. An accurate name for this rule would be no acting surprised when someone doesn’t know something, No, that's not how I or any other well-adjusted person would react. A better name for the rule is "don't be a dick. Everyone is here to help each other learn and grow" (and there might be a separate rule/policy/resource about how people who have not yet learned how to positively and productively control their emotions - which I am not denigrating, simply pointing out reality - can seek assistance with that as well). In the end, IT DEPENDS. But there's apparently no room for such nuance at Recurse...

dxdm 3mo ago
There's no rule against being surprised, and especially not against _ever_ being surprised. They are asking people not to express surprise, real or not, when responding to a question, as a courtesy to the person asking. Like: Keep your surprise in check in situations when it's not helping. I don't think that's too much to ask, just like it's generally considered preferable to not chew with your mouth open when in company, or talk to people with food in your mouth. They even acknowledge that they expect these rules to not be followed all the time. I'm surprised that you read it as a general prohibition of being surprised. ;) Edit: Sorry, wrote my reply before I saw your substantial edits where you clarify your position and distinguish between "positive" and "negative" surprise. I agree there's a better way express surprise. The rule clearly wants people to avoid putting other people down by creating a feeling of "wow, how can you not know this". That's the spirit of the rule, and I guess it could be expressed better. I don't think they'd have a problem if someone managed to turn the surprise into a positive, but to do that, it's good to be mindful that it's often perceived negatively.

amelius 3mo ago

I wonder if they have a rule on using AI and what their general stance is there.

ayewo 3mo ago
They do. It’s a reasonable stance [1] that is aptly captured by this quote: “I doubt very much if it is possible to teach anyone to understand anything, that is to say, to see how various parts of it relate to all the other parts, to have a model of the structure in one’s mind. We can give other people names, and lists, but we cannot give them our mental structures; they must build their own.” — John Holt 1: https://www.recurse.com/blog/191-developing-our-position-on-ai https://www.recurse.com/blog/191-developing-our-position-on-...

elric 3mo ago

I love the "no backseat driving" rule. That kind of behaviour is what caused me to stop engaging with StackOverflow.