4 ms·
Only yesterday, Jeff was agreeing with someone on reddit that HN is "sterile"; that people here are "on their best behaviour", and yet now he's recommending HN
by Jem 18y ago
Only yesterday, Jeff was agreeing with someone on reddit that HN is "sterile"; that people here are "on their best behaviour", and yet now he's recommending HN like he's used it for years?
I don't 'get' the backtracking.
- bena 18y agoWell, some very important things happen in sterile environments.
- swombat 18y agoI see nothing wrong with changing your mind about things, even quickly. So long as the change is not a quick oscillation between two opposite opinions (which would be two-faced or crazy), changing your mind quickly is a healthy habit.
- kylec 18y agoYeah, I'm not sure how to reconcile this comment: There's the same amount of crap, it's just dressed up in more pretentious verbiage. IMHO. 90% of everything is crap, no matter how "non-lame" your audience is. with his apparent recommendation to use HN the following day. The only thing I can think of is that he wants to dilute the HN community with his own.
- biohacker42 18y agoThe only thing I can think of is that he wants to dilute the HN community with his own. A brilliant yet terrifying insight.
- Xichekolas 18y agoWait a second... the guy who, yesterday, had an article on here about how HN was fundamentally flawed due to lack of story downvotes is now recommending it to his following? I'm _confused_.
- jrockway 18y agoI'm _confused_. It's Jeff Atwood. He talks out of his ass and randomly bolds stuff. That's about it. (Remember, he wrote a book review on his blog about a book he clearly hadn't read. All he does is talk.)
- wmeredith 18y agoMaybe he should stop and sharpen his saw...
- spoiledtechie 18y agoI agree, But after you have written 1000 posts, you start to lose content. He still needs the advertising so he needs to post something.
- derefr 18y agoIt's been about 50 years since we discovered the "[commercialized] never-ending serial"; we still haven't realized that it's a bad idea. TV shows (and soap operas especially), MMOs, blogs; all should really have definite endings and closure, but they continue, after having done all they've set out to do, based on brand alone. It's not like the same people can't make something else, something new--for example, you could put all the writers, artists and actors of the Simpsons on a new project, if you like--but they don't need to do the Simpsons any more. It's done. Every possible angle, every single side-story, every inter-character meeting has been explored. 1000 posts is enough to say what you came to say. If not, maybe go back and delete a few, distill some points to free up room for new expression. Perhaps blogging software should have a million-character limit on the total aggregate length of post body columns; it seems to have encouraged tweets to be more well-thought-out (though some of that is also probably from the fact that the ones sent from phones cost money.)
- areaMan 18y agoHe did that? I missed it. Which book did he review?
- raganwald 18y agoNo backtracking necessary: In this post he quotes some windbag: "Let's assume that some or even most of it will not be new. Let's assume that we'll positively detest some of it. But let's also look at it in terms of our own profit: we win if we can find just one thing in there that makes us better programmers." Yesterday he said HN is becoming overwhelmed with dreck. Today he is saying it's a win to read HN if you can find just one thing that makes you better. The two statements are entirely consistent with each other, and I suggest they are the entire point of the post he quotes.