13 ms·

The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask somethi

The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. The underlying problem here is that communication is hard; especially if it's not face to face. People can't read your mind or might not get the full context of your question. Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way. And that was when there was a lot of email to deal with. Lots of people demanding all sorts of things via email and creating more work for each other by sending more email. I learned to 1) never reply instantly to low priority requests, 2) be very brief and clear, 3) that talking to people is almost always the better choice when you get tempted to write a long reply. If you don't like the answers you are getting, maybe reflect on what you are asking, how reasonable that request really was, and how you communicated it. Maybe your question was entirely reasonable and the answer really inappropriately bad. If so, give feedback or talk to the person. But maybe the other side didn't get you. Or maybe they were busy and you are interrupting them. There can be all sorts of reasons why you aren't getting what you expected. It all depends on the context of course. If you are delegating something to somebody that reports to you, you can just tell them off. But if the other side is a colleague, your boss, or a friend you have to be a bit more considerate.

britches11 2mo ago
The bad PM on the other side does not have the same tools I do because they refuse to use the agents I've set up for them to ask questions about the codebase.
Forgeties79 2mo ago
> what’s the equivalent of “google it yourself” these days? Do you actually say that to people? Edit: i’ve hit the comment limit per given time, but all I have to say is “what have you found so far?” And “Google it yourself” are radically different responses man. The former is far more reasonable, it shows you are willing to be helpful and is a productive question. The other is just rude and implies your time is too valuable as well as assumes they’ve done nothing to tackle the problem. If you actually say “Google it yourself” when people ask you a question that would be absolutely bizarre behavior.
- zmgsabst 2mo ago
  Politely? — yes, all the time. A frequent first question when a subordinate asks me for help: “What have you found so far, searching for answers?”
- dec0dedab0de 2mo ago
  https://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+people+say+google+it+yourself https://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+people+say+google+it+yourself Thanks for reminding me of lmgtfy. We used to say that all the time 20 years ago, and it was way politer than how the people older than us spoke. It took some getting used to, but I really miss the hilariously mean bluntness of the IT/tech world. In retrospect, I think it was just a bunch of people who grew up breathing in leaded gas fumes, with undiagnosed mental disorders. But I miss it just the same.
  - darkstarsys 2mo ago
    Yeah, came here to see if anyone still remembers lmgtfy. Back to the future, I guess!
  - Forgeties79 2mo ago
    Absolutely revisionist history. That was never an acceptable thing to do outside of light hearted joking. You’d do that to a colleague or someone asking for help in earnest? It’s a deliberate, rude act that is aggressively proclaiming “how dare you waste my time.“ God help you if you ever ask a question you could’ve looked up yourself, because of course you never do that right? You always make sure to engage in rigorous scholarly research before daring to bother somebody.
    - dec0dedab0de 2mo ago
      Deliberate rude acts were very common in my first few jobs. I distinctly remember multiple directors asking people "Are you a fucking moron?", and much worse. This was both at small companies and fortune 200s. The rude cranky IT guy is a trope for a reason. Learning to return the hostility, while proving that you do indeed know what you're talking about, was a rite of passage. I almost just said it was like working with The Sopranos or Dr House, but now that I think about it maybe that's because I was in Jersey?
OptionOfT 2mo ago
Because part of the answer is learning people's experiences.
- altcognito 2mo ago
  (I agree but would add...) They should ask for it if that's the case. Typically if you're asking in a forum, you ought to state the research you've done up front as not just a courtesy, but a clarification of what you've seen/tried. Otherwise, you can just look lazy.
ImPostingOnHN 2mo ago
If you work for a company of more than 1 person, then helping and developing and mentoring your colleagues is part of your job, and a more important one than telling them to rtfm so you can spend those few minutes getting your own thing done. A company isn't just a bunch of people isolating themselves and doing their best to not talk to each other.
- elmo-shrugged 2mo ago
  if they didn't rtfm they are not being respectful of your time. unless you are literally first-day brand new, you should not be approaching a mentor for help getting unstuck without an answer ready for "what have you tried?"
  - ImPostingOnHN 2mo ago
    > if they didn't rtfm they are not being respectful of your time Yes they are. "RTFM" may be an angsty insult thrown around in some toxic open source projects, but it's rude and inappropriate for an actual working environment where you're supposed to (and being paid to) help others. Most time spent at a company at a normal job is collaborating with others. Your time is not so valuable that you cannot use it to make other people and the company successful, and when you're on the clock, that time belongs to the company anyways, who would likely prefer you do what's best for the company, rather than yourself. That said, "what have you tried so far" is a good question to ask, too, to coach your colleagues on how to find info, and to get context on what would be retreading their steps.
    - pessimizer 2mo ago
      "Collaborating" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and you're making a lot of silly accusations and presumptions. As a boss I'm not paying one employee to waste another employee's time, and I'm not paying them to teach each other when the answer is in the manual. The question is whether one employee's time is more valuable than another employee's time. One employee answering another employee's question expends two people's time. If the answer is in the book or on the first page of google, it is wasting one of those employee's time, and that is the boss's money. If the employee asking the question makes ten times as much as the employee answering the question, and it saves him 10% of his time over flipping through the manual, it's a wash. If both employees make the same amount, or the other person even makes less, it is obviously a waste. This is simple. RTFM isn't an angsty insult. It is a suggestion because I am not going to answer your question if it is in the manual.
mhaberl 2mo ago
> Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I learned a different lesson: Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text. You get a short reply that is a reply on a 1 sentence you wrote, twisted upside down ignoring completly the point that you had. -- > never reply instantly to low priority requests This is true 100% I would even say: "Never reply on anything instantly that is not an absolute emergency, ever"
- john_strinlai 2mo ago
  >This is true 100% I would even say: "Never reply on anything instantly that is not an absolute emergency, ever" you can shorten this to "never reply instantly", because an "absolute emergency" will never be communicated by email.
  - pixl97 2mo ago
    When someones only contact with you is email, then that's how you'll get news of the emergency.
    - john_strinlai 2mo ago
      i can't think of a situation where both the following are true: 1) someone having an emergency needs to contact me specifically. 2) that someone only has my email, and no other possible way of contacting me (or someone else that can contact me).
  - andy99 2mo ago
    What is the problem with replying instantly? If you can give a reply immediately why wouldn’t you? If it’s low priority work that takes time, sure, but a typical yes/no, I’m available at 5, whatever, why not just send it? If you’ve already read the email it’s less efficient to come back to it later
ccppurcell 2mo ago
I've been saying "ask chatgpt" when I don't think I have anything more useful to add.
john_strinlai 2mo ago
>3) that talking to people is almost always the better choice when you get tempted to write a long reply. indeed! but i would add (in corporate environments): 4) follow up your phone call/face-to-face chat with a brief email summary, so you have something in writing. it has saved me countless times over my career.
- prepend 2mo ago
  I like to go straight to #4 and skip the phone call or face to face.
jklinger410 2mo ago
Hey if you want to passive agressively send AI responses to people because you are disgruntled that they even asked and have decided you don't want to confront them directly, go for it. But I think the point of the original author still stands, even in that context.
m3kw9 2mo ago
Most times if we just google it, we'd have no conversation. Human interaction over.
- bluGill 2mo ago
  Google - even 20 years ago when they were good - is terrible. It often found something that looked good but was wrong in important ways. It often found things that were hard to understand. There is still value in google first (even today with all the slop), but there is plenty of room for conversation after you have the background needed to understand the deep discussions that result after you have done some early research.
- duskdozer 2mo ago
  And? Why is a conversation needed?
  - jodrellblank 2mo ago
    "Why is a conversation needed?" he conversed, obliviously
- prepend 2mo ago
  Minimizing human interaction is a feature not a bug.
- bigfishrunning 2mo ago
  If you're just copying and pasting to some chatbot, is it really human interaction anymore?
yourapostasy 2mo ago
> If you are delegating something to somebody that reports to you, you can just tell them off. Coaching someone on why the perspective of the receiver of their behavior works counter-purpose to their intent due to <undesired-behavior-of-theirs> has so far always gotten me more durable and thoughtful behavior modifications than telling them off. I generally reserve telling off someone for proven malicious behavior from malicious intent.
setgree 2mo ago
I get questions about academic papers I've written from non-academics sometimes. It's fun, I like that people are reading. However, some of them are clearly written by AI. I typically answer anyway, but on my most recent, I appended at the end: > P.S. I intuit, and Pangram agrees, that this last email was AI-generated (and apparently so was the first one, now that I checked). As general career advice, I wish to observe that learning to write emails unaided is an extremely valuable skill in the dual senses that 1) writing is thinking [0] and 2) many people who receive an email they believe to be AI-generated will not be interested in corresponding, even if you're asking good questions, which you are. It would be a shame for that to get in the way of your research goals. A polite, generic response like this is reasonably low-effort -- you must draft it once -- and might really help someone. Who knows though. [0] hyperlinked to https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4
- throwaway98797 2mo ago
  it’s passive aggressive. ultimately it’s better to not inform and start ignoring these people. let natural selection work.
  - joshred 2mo ago
    What's passive about it?
    - rfrey 2mo ago
      Furthermore, what's aggressive about it?
    - throwaway98797 2mo ago
      don’t use ai when you write emails to me. that’s direct and aggressive. framing it as advice is the passive part.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
prepend 2mo ago
> that talking to people is almost always the better choice when you get tempted to write a long reply. I’ve heard this “conclusion” from many people over my career. I disagree as a general rule as much of my work is scientific and technical and long replies are more useful than talking as having things written down makes things reproducible and shareable. I think long emails are bad ways to deliberate or debate or to collaboratively create. But they are great for communicating complex ideas to variable size audiences (ie, one person forwards to their team or files things off for later reference). Even better when accompanied to a link to a web version that can be revised with additional info later. This really helps due to the async nature. Getting on the phone with someone and talking through an idea with them assumes both parties have time to do that. And is a silly suggestion when 5 people need to read something. I find it more efficient to get a thoughtfully crafted email than a phone call that still will need to be followed up with an email to confirm all parties understand. My, probably wrong, take is that the “talk, don’t write” people is based on their inability to logically think through, structure, and communicate their ideas and, instead, would rather connect directly and hope the solution emerges from a conversation.
- DenisM 2mo ago
  > talk, don’t write” people is based on their inability to logically think through, structure, and communicate their ideas and, instead, would rather connect directly and hope the solution emerges from a conversation. That is a remarkably direct way to dismiss the value of brainstorming. :) Also consider that when content is easy to produce and distribute at scale people stop reading with any kind of attention - there’s too much to read and most of it is not targeted (relevant to me), far too generic and shallow in effort to address excessively large audience, and with little back pressure against verbosity. When we talk in person the other person knows that I am targeting the conversation and invest my time to the same extent they do, they will engage much more. Also consider that often times a discussion will reframe the question rather than provide answer. Also consider that people are dramatically more candid in person. I’m wondering what is that nature of your work that none of this surfaced for you?
  - prepend 2mo ago
dijksterhuis 2mo ago
> What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? not mine, no license, only chinese language on the eventual page, but has the beginnings of something beautiful https://github.com/chenxuan520/lmlfy https://github.com/chenxuan520/lmlfy
georgeecollins 2mo ago
Wow I felt this post and trust me I am never asking the question! I work in a job where people make "creative" proposals (we say pitches or decks) to me almost every day. The length and word count has exploded. I can't say for sure that it is AI in a case by case basis, but I often suspect it. It used to be when I got something boring a person wrote I felt obligated to read it. Now I am not sure what to do.
starky 2mo ago
>The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? >What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. One of the hardest things about taking on any sort of leadership role (even unofficially) is that you need to allow others to do things. It feels incredibly stupid when you have to ask someone to do something you are more than capable of doing better/faster than the other person, but if you did that all the time you wouldn't have time to do your other work. Sometimes that includes questions that seem lazy, but part of asking the question is for the other person to acknowledge that they have thought about it and/or to ensure you aren't stealing ownership from someone.
whykislay 2mo ago
[dead]

britches11 2mo ago

The bad PM on the other side does not have the same tools I do because they refuse to use the agents I've set up for them to ask questions about the codebase.

Forgeties79 2mo ago

> what’s the equivalent of “google it yourself” these days? Do you actually say that to people? Edit: i’ve hit the comment limit per given time, but all I have to say is “what have you found so far?” And “Google it yourself” are radically different responses man. The former is far more reasonable, it shows you are willing to be helpful and is a productive question. The other is just rude and implies your time is too valuable as well as assumes they’ve done nothing to tackle the problem. If you actually say “Google it yourself” when people ask you a question that would be absolutely bizarre behavior.

zmgsabst 2mo ago
Politely? — yes, all the time. A frequent first question when a subordinate asks me for help: “What have you found so far, searching for answers?”
dec0dedab0de 2mo ago
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+people+say+google+it+yourself https://lmgtfy.com/?q=do+people+say+google+it+yourself Thanks for reminding me of lmgtfy. We used to say that all the time 20 years ago, and it was way politer than how the people older than us spoke. It took some getting used to, but I really miss the hilariously mean bluntness of the IT/tech world. In retrospect, I think it was just a bunch of people who grew up breathing in leaded gas fumes, with undiagnosed mental disorders. But I miss it just the same.
- darkstarsys 2mo ago
  Yeah, came here to see if anyone still remembers lmgtfy. Back to the future, I guess!
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  Absolutely revisionist history. That was never an acceptable thing to do outside of light hearted joking. You’d do that to a colleague or someone asking for help in earnest? It’s a deliberate, rude act that is aggressively proclaiming “how dare you waste my time.“ God help you if you ever ask a question you could’ve looked up yourself, because of course you never do that right? You always make sure to engage in rigorous scholarly research before daring to bother somebody.
  - dec0dedab0de 2mo ago
    Deliberate rude acts were very common in my first few jobs. I distinctly remember multiple directors asking people "Are you a fucking moron?", and much worse. This was both at small companies and fortune 200s. The rude cranky IT guy is a trope for a reason. Learning to return the hostility, while proving that you do indeed know what you're talking about, was a rite of passage. I almost just said it was like working with The Sopranos or Dr House, but now that I think about it maybe that's because I was in Jersey?

OptionOfT 2mo ago

Because part of the answer is learning people's experiences.

altcognito 2mo ago
(I agree but would add...) They should ask for it if that's the case. Typically if you're asking in a forum, you ought to state the research you've done up front as not just a courtesy, but a clarification of what you've seen/tried. Otherwise, you can just look lazy.

ImPostingOnHN 2mo ago

If you work for a company of more than 1 person, then helping and developing and mentoring your colleagues is part of your job, and a more important one than telling them to rtfm so you can spend those few minutes getting your own thing done. A company isn't just a bunch of people isolating themselves and doing their best to not talk to each other.

elmo-shrugged 2mo ago
if they didn't rtfm they are not being respectful of your time. unless you are literally first-day brand new, you should not be approaching a mentor for help getting unstuck without an answer ready for "what have you tried?"
- ImPostingOnHN 2mo ago
  > if they didn't rtfm they are not being respectful of your time Yes they are. "RTFM" may be an angsty insult thrown around in some toxic open source projects, but it's rude and inappropriate for an actual working environment where you're supposed to (and being paid to) help others. Most time spent at a company at a normal job is collaborating with others. Your time is not so valuable that you cannot use it to make other people and the company successful, and when you're on the clock, that time belongs to the company anyways, who would likely prefer you do what's best for the company, rather than yourself. That said, "what have you tried so far" is a good question to ask, too, to coach your colleagues on how to find info, and to get context on what would be retreading their steps.
  - pessimizer 2mo ago
    "Collaborating" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and you're making a lot of silly accusations and presumptions. As a boss I'm not paying one employee to waste another employee's time, and I'm not paying them to teach each other when the answer is in the manual. The question is whether one employee's time is more valuable than another employee's time. One employee answering another employee's question expends two people's time. If the answer is in the book or on the first page of google, it is wasting one of those employee's time, and that is the boss's money. If the employee asking the question makes ten times as much as the employee answering the question, and it saves him 10% of his time over flipping through the manual, it's a wash. If both employees make the same amount, or the other person even makes less, it is obviously a waste. This is simple. RTFM isn't an angsty insult. It is a suggestion because I am not going to answer your question if it is in the manual.

mhaberl 2mo ago

> Back in the day I learned the hard way that sending a long reply to an email just ensures the other side won't read it. You can't assume that you dealt with their request effectively that way Then I guess you didn't deal with much of the empty-headed-managment type much. I learned a different lesson: Write a long email that took time to reason and write, precise and complete text. You get a short reply that is a reply on a 1 sentence you wrote, twisted upside down ignoring completly the point that you had. -- > never reply instantly to low priority requests This is true 100% I would even say: "Never reply on anything instantly that is not an absolute emergency, ever"

john_strinlai 2mo ago
>This is true 100% I would even say: "Never reply on anything instantly that is not an absolute emergency, ever" you can shorten this to "never reply instantly", because an "absolute emergency" will never be communicated by email.
- pixl97 2mo ago
  When someones only contact with you is email, then that's how you'll get news of the emergency.
  - john_strinlai 2mo ago
    i can't think of a situation where both the following are true: 1) someone having an emergency needs to contact me specifically. 2) that someone only has my email, and no other possible way of contacting me (or someone else that can contact me).
- andy99 2mo ago
  What is the problem with replying instantly? If you can give a reply immediately why wouldn’t you? If it’s low priority work that takes time, sure, but a typical yes/no, I’m available at 5, whatever, why not just send it? If you’ve already read the email it’s less efficient to come back to it later

ccppurcell 2mo ago

I've been saying "ask chatgpt" when I don't think I have anything more useful to add.

john_strinlai 2mo ago

>3) that talking to people is almost always the better choice when you get tempted to write a long reply. indeed! but i would add (in corporate environments): 4) follow up your phone call/face-to-face chat with a brief email summary, so you have something in writing. it has saved me countless times over my career.

prepend 2mo ago
I like to go straight to #4 and skip the phone call or face to face.

jklinger410 2mo ago

Hey if you want to passive agressively send AI responses to people because you are disgruntled that they even asked and have decided you don't want to confront them directly, go for it. But I think the point of the original author still stands, even in that context.

m3kw9 2mo ago

Most times if we just google it, we'd have no conversation. Human interaction over.

bluGill 2mo ago
Google - even 20 years ago when they were good - is terrible. It often found something that looked good but was wrong in important ways. It often found things that were hard to understand. There is still value in google first (even today with all the slop), but there is plenty of room for conversation after you have the background needed to understand the deep discussions that result after you have done some early research.
duskdozer 2mo ago
And? Why is a conversation needed?
- jodrellblank 2mo ago
  "Why is a conversation needed?" he conversed, obliviously
prepend 2mo ago
Minimizing human interaction is a feature not a bug.
bigfishrunning 2mo ago
If you're just copying and pasting to some chatbot, is it really human interaction anymore?

yourapostasy 2mo ago

> If you are delegating something to somebody that reports to you, you can just tell them off. Coaching someone on why the perspective of the receiver of their behavior works counter-purpose to their intent due to <undesired-behavior-of-theirs> has so far always gotten me more durable and thoughtful behavior modifications than telling them off. I generally reserve telling off someone for proven malicious behavior from malicious intent.

setgree 2mo ago

I get questions about academic papers I've written from non-academics sometimes. It's fun, I like that people are reading. However, some of them are clearly written by AI. I typically answer anyway, but on my most recent, I appended at the end: > P.S. I intuit, and Pangram agrees, that this last email was AI-generated (and apparently so was the first one, now that I checked). As general career advice, I wish to observe that learning to write emails unaided is an extremely valuable skill in the dual senses that 1) writing is thinking [0] and 2) many people who receive an email they believe to be AI-generated will not be interested in corresponding, even if you're asking good questions, which you are. It would be a shame for that to get in the way of your research goals. A polite, generic response like this is reasonably low-effort -- you must draft it once -- and might really help someone. Who knows though. [0] hyperlinked to https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-025-00323-4

throwaway98797 2mo ago
it’s passive aggressive. ultimately it’s better to not inform and start ignoring these people. let natural selection work.
- joshred 2mo ago
  What's passive about it?
  - rfrey 2mo ago
    Furthermore, what's aggressive about it?
  - throwaway98797 2mo ago
    don’t use ai when you write emails to me. that’s direct and aggressive. framing it as advice is the passive part.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]

prepend 2mo ago

> that talking to people is almost always the better choice when you get tempted to write a long reply. I’ve heard this “conclusion” from many people over my career. I disagree as a general rule as much of my work is scientific and technical and long replies are more useful than talking as having things written down makes things reproducible and shareable. I think long emails are bad ways to deliberate or debate or to collaboratively create. But they are great for communicating complex ideas to variable size audiences (ie, one person forwards to their team or files things off for later reference). Even better when accompanied to a link to a web version that can be revised with additional info later. This really helps due to the async nature. Getting on the phone with someone and talking through an idea with them assumes both parties have time to do that. And is a silly suggestion when 5 people need to read something. I find it more efficient to get a thoughtfully crafted email than a phone call that still will need to be followed up with an email to confirm all parties understand. My, probably wrong, take is that the “talk, don’t write” people is based on their inability to logically think through, structure, and communicate their ideas and, instead, would rather connect directly and hope the solution emerges from a conversation.

DenisM 2mo ago
> talk, don’t write” people is based on their inability to logically think through, structure, and communicate their ideas and, instead, would rather connect directly and hope the solution emerges from a conversation. That is a remarkably direct way to dismiss the value of brainstorming. :) Also consider that when content is easy to produce and distribute at scale people stop reading with any kind of attention - there’s too much to read and most of it is not targeted (relevant to me), far too generic and shallow in effort to address excessively large audience, and with little back pressure against verbosity. When we talk in person the other person knows that I am targeting the conversation and invest my time to the same extent they do, they will engage much more. Also consider that often times a discussion will reframe the question rather than provide answer. Also consider that people are dramatically more candid in person. I’m wondering what is that nature of your work that none of this surfaced for you?
- prepend 2mo ago

dijksterhuis 2mo ago

> What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? not mine, no license, only chinese language on the eventual page, but has the beginnings of something beautiful https://github.com/chenxuan520/lmlfy https://github.com/chenxuan520/lmlfy

georgeecollins 2mo ago

Wow I felt this post and trust me I am never asking the question! I work in a job where people make "creative" proposals (we say pitches or decks) to me almost every day. The length and word count has exploded. I can't say for sure that it is AI in a case by case basis, but I often suspect it. It used to be when I got something boring a person wrote I felt obligated to read it. Now I am not sure what to do.

starky 2mo ago

>The complaint here is about lazy answers. But what about all the lazy questions? >What's the equivalent of "Google it yourself" these days? When you ask something of somebody, the expectation of the other side to drop everything and do work for you isn't always appropriate/balanced/appreciated. One of the hardest things about taking on any sort of leadership role (even unofficially) is that you need to allow others to do things. It feels incredibly stupid when you have to ask someone to do something you are more than capable of doing better/faster than the other person, but if you did that all the time you wouldn't have time to do your other work. Sometimes that includes questions that seem lazy, but part of asking the question is for the other person to acknowledge that they have thought about it and/or to ensure you aren't stealing ownership from someone.

whykislay 2mo ago

[dead]