171–180 of 247 posts
This comment where I first learned about using a bare Git repo for dotfiles management: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11071754
"The contrarian dynamic" by dang, from around a month ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215601 > The "contrarian dynamic" is that HN threads (and internet comments generally) are largely propelled by people making objections. Cunningham's Law touches on this [1]. The objections come in waves. In the earliest stage of a thread, they tend to be rapid negative reactions to the article. It's not that these are…
A dramatic solution, assuming this phenomena is something to be abated, is to simply remove replies. Why does every internet community by default have a feature that steers us to negativity and confrontation. I often find myself scrolling past the replies on here anyway to find the next comment that may be unique, useful and well-thought - not just an objection or tepid agreement to something that’s already been said…
Taiwan use it for their multi-stakeholder decision making to find points of agreement. Their application of it to the Uber vs Taxis situation was quite interesting.
https://debconf18.debconf.org/talks/135-q-a-session-with-min... https://blog.pol.is/pol-is-in-taiwan-da7570d372b5 https://blog.pol.is/uber-responds-to-vtaiwans-coherent-blend...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you see $100 on the road, leave it there, it's fake or someone would have picked it up first.
This is an excellent comment, it should be noted given the thread.
The issue is having ideas but not the ability to determine whether they are good ideas nobody has capitalized on yet or bad ideas that others have abandoned. I find myself asking this question often about a lot of things -- am I somehow so fortunate or clever that I've conjured a great idea, or do I lack the clarity of thought or prior knowledge to understand why my idea is bad, useless, or somehow infeasible?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24532382 :)
"The contrarian dynamic" by dang, from around a month ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215601 > The "contrarian dynamic" is that HN threads (and internet comments generally) are largely propelled by people making objections. Cunningham's Law touches on this [1]. The objections come in waves. In the earliest stage of a thread, they tend to be rapid negative reactions to the article. It's not that these are…
I'm not sure if I'm surprised that dang didn't touch on to mention downvotes as an even more rapid "contrarian dynamic" mechanism; wouldn't it be nice if downvotes had a little more friction, effort required for the action - like qualitative text from the downvoter as to why a comment is being downvoted to then allow OP the opportunity to clarify or expand on their comment - "to be more reflective and therefore bette…
Adds just enough friction to reduce downvotes a bit, provides information to the person being downvoted (no more "why all the hate?" comments), and doesn't pollute the experience for everyone else, since those are not visible by most users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the idea. Perhaps asking users why they are downvoting could help. Maybe not necessary to show their reason to others, but add friction and force someone to think twice.
If there's no witnessing or critique/scrutiny by the community possible then I don't think there will be the pressure necessary for quality comments to be made - and leaving a moderator to privately review them would likely have more comments left toward the spectrum of "this guy's an idiot" then toward side of constructive or useful criticism.
So there is potential scrutiny by the community, but not in a way that disrupts the original discussion?
The legendary "Putnam" one, of course: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079
Okay, so, what do we think about TarSnap? Dude was obviously a genius, and spent his time on backups instead of solving millennium problems. I say that with the greatest respect. Is this entrepreneurship thing a trap?
> Is this entrepreneurship thing a trap?
Depends on your goals, eh?
"If all you wanted was money you could just rob a bank."
"The contrarian dynamic" by dang, from around a month ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215601 > The "contrarian dynamic" is that HN threads (and internet comments generally) are largely propelled by people making objections. Cunningham's Law touches on this [1]. The objections come in waves. In the earliest stage of a thread, they tend to be rapid negative reactions to the article. It's not that these are…
I'm not sure if I'm surprised that dang didn't touch on to mention downvotes as an even more rapid "contrarian dynamic" mechanism; wouldn't it be nice if downvotes had a little more friction, effort required for the action - like qualitative text from the downvoter as to why a comment is being downvoted to then allow OP the opportunity to clarify or expand on their comment - "to be more reflective and therefore bette…
Upvotes have much less friction. Downvoted posts are not merely downvoted, they are also not upvoted. Why don't people upvote posts that are unfairly downvoted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually people who design interaction spaces know something about human behavior, spectrum of personality types/needs, social psychology, group dynamics etc and then design the space. But what has happened in the tech world, is obviously the reverse. All kinds of contrived/arbit spaces have been created and then behavior of the lab rats within are studied.
Could you point to a good example of an interaction space designed this way?
EDIT: Also check out and explore - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an excellent comment, it should be noted given the thread.
Something that bugs me about this metaphor is the foregone conclusion that the thing on the ground is identifiably a $100 bill. Clearly anyone seeing a great idea for the taking will do so, but the discussion is really more comparable to seeing a bit of trash on the ground and pondering whether it might be money or not. The issue is having ideas but not the ability to determine whether they are good ideas nobody has…
For it to work as intended, you'd have to construct (or buy into) some framework for an "efficient marketplace of ideas."