Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

#51

Post by jacobush »

vinceguidry wrote: post #49
laputan_machine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's closely related to Brandolini's law, that the amount of energy it takes to create bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the energy it takes to refute it. Isn't it the opposite?

Perhaps, though I would call it a converse or inverse rather than an opposite. Either are close relations. You can't be a thing's opposite unless the two of you share a lot together. North has more in common with South than it does with East.

Entropy is a harsh mistress. Easier to burn down than to rebuild.

Re: Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

#52

Post by vinceguidry »

jacobush wrote: post #51
vinceguidry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, though I would call it a converse or inverse rather than an opposite. Either are close relations. You can't be a thing's opposite unless the two of you share a lot together. North has more in common with South than it does with East.

Entropy is a harsh mistress. Easier to burn down than to rebuild.

Yeah. The intriguing thing about knowledge and the study of it, epistemology, is that once discovered, it doesn't just go away. It sets the world on fire and burns away cruft.

Bullshit can be seen as both the cruft that gets burned away by true knowledge, or the fire that demolishes old ways of understanding, however true. To see it the other way, imagine attacking the hegemony of the Catholic Church with incisive bullshit.

Small societies have their reactions to the larger one and the veins of bullshit they'll propound onto the larger. By the time you or I see a particular incarnation, it's already been through numerous iterations. We can't have witnessed the genesis of Pizzagate, but we know that idea has to have one and the subsequent generations until it reached final, grotesque, form.

These ideas are self-defense weapons, shields against an onslaught of 'liberal' ideology.

Re: Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

#53

Post by vinceguidry »

laputan_machine wrote: post #46
vinceguidry wrote: post #40

One of the more interesting aspects of this article was that it touched on this concept I have of 'narrative density'. It's closely related to Brandolini's law, that the amount of energy it takes to create bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the energy it takes to refute it. A story takes more effort to explain than it does to simply read and experience it. The author's efforts to explain the story to the i…

>It's closely related to Brandolini's law, that the amount of energy it takes to create bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the energy it takes to refute it. Isn't it the opposite?

Oh, didn't catch that you were pointing out a typo, lol.

Re: Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

#54

Post by nosianu »

mzanchi wrote: post #20
nosianu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> off-topic, but interesting > interesting, but off-topic I believe you just said the same thing twice, you only reversed the order (I think the "but" here just is an AND) :-)

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

I did think about it. Before I posted I spent more than just a small bit of effort. I still don't see what the difference actually is though. Yes I know what "but" means. I know all those words... but...

I do not see any actual difference. Anything you apply those two descriptions to are both "off-topic" as well as "interesting", according to those descriptions. The "but" does not make any difference at all as far as I can see. The other replies say there is a preference implied (I already knew that that was the intention), but as I just wrote, however you parse it, you end up with both attributes and I don't see any preference actually being applied. I see the attempt, yes, but I don't see that there is any effect.

Re: Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

#55

Post by amingilani »

k_sze wrote: post #14

The skeptical part of me says none of this actually happened and that the article is just a piece of publicity stunt. The other part thinks the author is too careless/not paranoid enough: he just guaranteed himself a spot on a watchlist by publicly admitting that he deceived the officers who interrogated him.

Unfortunately, as another Pakistani, I can tell you first-hand this account sounds very credible. I've known startup founders coming back from conferences in South Asia being interviewed by "Intelligence" and their companies audited just because someone was curious.

I've personally been tried to be interviewed for having a meeting at a foreign Consulate. The "Intelligence" may be hostile to journalists but their conduct is toxic to all civilians.

Talking about this encounter is the best thing he could've done. Think of it as protection against enforced disappearance. He's already on a "watch list", why else did they interview him?

Re: Explaining a Novel to Pakistani Intelligence

#56

Post by amingilani »

vegiraghav wrote: post #18
k_sze wrote: post #14

The skeptical part of me says none of this actually happened and that the article is just a piece of publicity stunt. The other part thinks the author is too careless/not paranoid enough: he just guaranteed himself a spot on a watchlist by publicly admitting that he deceived the officers who interrogated him.

And knowing Pakistanis both are equally possible.

I'm Pakistani, would you say you know me well enough to judge whether every account I post online is truthful or not? If your answer to that is negative, then how can you make the same claim for the author?
Post reply on HN