4 ms·

It's curious, isn't it, that we still have "Home" pages. For a while there, Google Reader was my starting point, but nowadays I find myself starting off from HN

by Udo 14y ago

It's curious, isn't it, that we still have "Home" pages. For a while there, Google Reader was my starting point, but nowadays I find myself starting off from HN. This must be what Facebook feels like to normal people, but without the insidious stalking and the dreaded obligations that come from surveillance features like "X is online NOW, you have to interact with him/her!" and "X has seen this (but has neither liked nor commented on it)". Also, I wish my Facebook friends would produce a link and comment stream that is even one tenth as interesting as HN ;)

dfc 14y ago
Normal people? I just vomited a little. Thanks for ruining breakfast.
- Udo 14y ago
  You're very welcome. And I allege you know that's not how I meant it. Do you really want to assert that the subject matters at HN are part of mainstream culture? I do believe that IT people tend to use the internet differently, this is not an elitist observation in case it came across as such. It's just different.
  - dfc 14y ago
    I have a friend who is big into fantasy sports (blue collar job: construction). The first thing he does when he sits down in front of the computer is that he checks whatever roster he is managing at the time. Is he not "normal"?
    - Udo 14y ago
      I get the feeling that you choose to misunderstand. If there is anything I can add to this line of discussion I will gladly do it, but I have to admit I'm a bit lost as to what your problem is here.
      - dfc 14y ago
        I didn't choose your words.
        Udo 14y ago
        No, but you did choose to interpret them in a totally different context, deliberately giving them a meaning that was clearly not part of my statement. Then you ignored, yet still replied to, my clarification. From my perspective this looks like either a huge misunderstanding or the definition of straw man rhetorics. And I have to say I don't get where your hostility comes from, but I neither recognize my message as it was apparently understood by you nor do I appreciate the tone. I'm always ready to admit that issues like these could be my fault as I all-too-often like to hide behind the fact that I'm not a native speaker. I just don't see it this time though. In the spirit of being constructive: I don't think the application of the label "normalcy" or the lack thereof is a value judgement in any way, and being "normal" is something that must be interpreted within the given context - otherwise it makes no sense because it's not a global property that encompasses the entire personality of a person.
        dfc 14y ago
        I brought the label of "normal" in a discussion with some friends. I have come to the conclusion that how someone interprets "normal" has a lot to do with their background. My friends with a strictly technical background (or those without some background in social sciences or the arts) did not seem differentiate between normal and average. In the social sciences normal has additional connotations/ramifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29
        Udo 14y ago
        Instantly all kinds of connotations can be applied to pretty much any word, as long as someone is willing to completely ignore the context and the intent of the message. Which, I'm sorry to say, I think happened here. Of course we all have "trigger words" that we associate with our little linguistic traumas, but there is a line after the crossing of which you simply attack the wrong people for things they didn't even say. I know, because I've done that occasionally as well and it took someone external to tell and make me realize what was happening. So in this spirit I'm trying to tell you: this is what's happening. Regarding the actual subject of normalcy I'm finding it difficult to add anything else without repeating myself. From personal experience, there is always "good normal" and "bad normal", as there is "good not normal" and "bad not normal", but even more often it just means "different from the other 80%". In this case, I chose the word normal because it instantly conveys the fact that most hackers use the web in different ways from most of the other people. That's all. It did its job. It's unfortunate that this triggered something in you, but I encourage you to take a step back and recognize that you saw some things in my message that were simply not there.
    - TWAndrews 14y ago
      I bet if he were talking about fantasy sports on a forum full of fantasy players, he'd neither be surprised nor upset at someone in the forum dividing the world into groups of fantasy players/normal people.
- sjdhgvf 14y ago
  This is a very peculiar comment. What exactly in the word "normal" made you vomit - especially in the context used by the OP?

by Udo 14y ago

dfc 14y ago

Normal people? I just vomited a little. Thanks for ruining breakfast.

Udo 14y ago
You're very welcome. And I allege you know that's not how I meant it. Do you really want to assert that the subject matters at HN are part of mainstream culture? I do believe that IT people tend to use the internet differently, this is not an elitist observation in case it came across as such. It's just different.
- dfc 14y ago
  I have a friend who is big into fantasy sports (blue collar job: construction). The first thing he does when he sits down in front of the computer is that he checks whatever roster he is managing at the time. Is he not "normal"?
  - Udo 14y ago
    I get the feeling that you choose to misunderstand. If there is anything I can add to this line of discussion I will gladly do it, but I have to admit I'm a bit lost as to what your problem is here.
    - dfc 14y ago
      I didn't choose your words.
      - Udo 14y ago
        No, but you did choose to interpret them in a totally different context, deliberately giving them a meaning that was clearly not part of my statement. Then you ignored, yet still replied to, my clarification. From my perspective this looks like either a huge misunderstanding or the definition of straw man rhetorics. And I have to say I don't get where your hostility comes from, but I neither recognize my message as it was apparently understood by you nor do I appreciate the tone. I'm always ready to admit that issues like these could be my fault as I all-too-often like to hide behind the fact that I'm not a native speaker. I just don't see it this time though. In the spirit of being constructive: I don't think the application of the label "normalcy" or the lack thereof is a value judgement in any way, and being "normal" is something that must be interpreted within the given context - otherwise it makes no sense because it's not a global property that encompasses the entire personality of a person.
        dfc 14y ago
        I brought the label of "normal" in a discussion with some friends. I have come to the conclusion that how someone interprets "normal" has a lot to do with their background. My friends with a strictly technical background (or those without some background in social sciences or the arts) did not seem differentiate between normal and average. In the social sciences normal has additional connotations/ramifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29
        Udo 14y ago
        Instantly all kinds of connotations can be applied to pretty much any word, as long as someone is willing to completely ignore the context and the intent of the message. Which, I'm sorry to say, I think happened here. Of course we all have "trigger words" that we associate with our little linguistic traumas, but there is a line after the crossing of which you simply attack the wrong people for things they didn't even say. I know, because I've done that occasionally as well and it took someone external to tell and make me realize what was happening. So in this spirit I'm trying to tell you: this is what's happening. Regarding the actual subject of normalcy I'm finding it difficult to add anything else without repeating myself. From personal experience, there is always "good normal" and "bad normal", as there is "good not normal" and "bad not normal", but even more often it just means "different from the other 80%". In this case, I chose the word normal because it instantly conveys the fact that most hackers use the web in different ways from most of the other people. That's all. It did its job. It's unfortunate that this triggered something in you, but I encourage you to take a step back and recognize that you saw some things in my message that were simply not there.
  - TWAndrews 14y ago
    I bet if he were talking about fantasy sports on a forum full of fantasy players, he'd neither be surprised nor upset at someone in the forum dividing the world into groups of fantasy players/normal people.
sjdhgvf 14y ago
This is a very peculiar comment. What exactly in the word "normal" made you vomit - especially in the context used by the OP?