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

Haters

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 308 posts

Re: Haters

#271

Post by DSingularity »

braythwayt wrote: post #245
rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

> How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? The very premise of this question is broken. What matters is whether y is a fraud, not why x is calling them a fraud. The way to discover whether y is a fraud is to look at any evidence x provides, and/or think about any questions x proposes. If x is correct, what does it matter if they’re a hater? If x is incorrect,…

Bravo. I thought the comment you replied to was spot on. Yours just nails it.

Re: Haters

#272

Post by glangdale »

I have butted heads with pg in a minor fashion in the past over his tendency to disingenuously omit things from his essays, then get pissy about the fact that critics don't always go line-by-line over the "thing I got wrong" (ergo: critics == haters).

This essay, if it truly applies to Lambda School as many of the other commenters are suggesting, is a case in point. If this is really about Lambda School, then there's at least some plausible reasons to find it sketchy which one might want to address.

Re: Haters

#273

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

gist wrote: post #268
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we could somehow limit articles to anonymous authors, so we can focus on the substance of the piece versus who wrote it.

Or what would be also interesting is if PG replied to comments two ways and choose randomly his identity (by flip of a coin). He'd write a comment. Then flip a coin. One side he posts his comment (he doesn't comment anymore but let's say he got back to doing that) as 'PG'. Another with another stealth handle. Not about anything substantive where he has authority. Then see how people react (upvotes or argumentative) t…

I would enjoy for any relatively high profile person to try this experiment, to broaden the chance of it actually occurring.

Re: Haters

#274

Post by rightbyte »

braythwayt wrote: post #245
rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

> How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? The very premise of this question is broken. What matters is whether y is a fraud, not why x is calling them a fraud. The way to discover whether y is a fraud is to look at any evidence x provides, and/or think about any questions x proposes. If x is correct, what does it matter if they’re a hater? If x is incorrect,…

"What matters is whether y is a fraud, not why x is calling them a fraud."

Isn't the "why" quite important? I mean, probably the one thing that is important? I.e., that the hater is a "hater" is not important, but why he is a hater. If there is no reason than the "hater" is unfounded.

I would argue that "hater" mostly is an ad hominem attack on someone. It would be interesting to know what haters bother P. Graham for. In general for being a kinda celeb? He doesn't write the "why" in his essay and neither tries to understand it, but argues they are irrational fanboys.

Re: Haters

#275

Post by Nicksil »

redsymbol wrote: post #264
Barrin92 wrote: post #254

absolutely horrible piece. From invoking stereotypes about basement-dwelling losers and manhood to a completely uncritical view about what constitutes hate and what doesn't, to the implicit lambda school context around the article, this reads like apologia for the tech CEO polite society who cannot handle criticism from ordinary people. The article even uses the words famous and successful interchangeably, entertaini…

Consider that the tone of the article, as you're experiencing it, may have more to do with your own attitude and preconceptions, and what meanings you're choosing to read between the lines. Where you wrote: "Entertaining the idea that..." "... is revealing ..." "The tone of the article sounds like..." "It almost sounds like..." These are all places where one could interpret things very differently. I read the whole a…

I, too, read the article. I felt it apparent, from just about the beginning, to be as-described by Barrin92 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22022013

Re: Haters

#276

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Barrin92 wrote: post #254

absolutely horrible piece. From invoking stereotypes about basement-dwelling losers and manhood to a completely uncritical view about what constitutes hate and what doesn't, to the implicit lambda school context around the article, this reads like apologia for the tech CEO polite society who cannot handle criticism from ordinary people. The article even uses the words famous and successful interchangeably, entertaini…

Famous people are sensitive to hate because they get a lot more hate than you and I do. People with half of Graham’s notoriety get a constant stream of messages and emails saying they suck, the world’s worse for having them, wishing them various kinds of physical harm. The idea that you should listen to everyone who’s mad at you becomes completely impossible at a relatively low scale of responsibility.

Re: Haters

#277

Post by defen »

Is this a brand new essay, or is it one that pg has talked about / published before? Because I am having an extreme case of deja-vu right now. Was this originally published 10-15 years ago?

Re: Haters

#278

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #256
tempsy wrote: post #207

The article is about Lambda School, for those who have not been following on Twitter. if you’re a startup CEO and you spend a year relentlessly bragging about your startup publicly you invite scrutiny on yourself. You are practically begging others to ask questions you might not want asked. His chief of staff literally insulted the intelligence of anyone who dared suggest Lambda School was worth less than $100B https…

When I read a tweet like that, I have to ponder the actual, underlying belief (at a personal level) versus the public image you must present as a function of your role, in this case, C-level executive. It's like you have to be completely blind to anything critical of your business. Your investors expect it. Your colleagues expect it. It appears to be a genuinely unenjoyable position to be in. Lambda School is even 1/…

At that point it’s not even meant as a statement of fact, not really. Surely his response to an investor offering less than a $100B valuation wouldn’t be “you don’t understand the economy haha”. Some people just take the attitude that any claim which won’t get you indicted for fraud is a legitimate PR tactic.

Re: Haters

#279

Post by erikig »

“Haters are confused admirers who can’t understand why everybody else likes you”

- Paulo Coelho

Re: Haters

#280

Post by thebigshane »

Someone mentioned their surprised at the negativity in this essay. I agree, Paul’s frustration is coming through which is new to me as a long time reader of his. It got me thinking of the recent article [0] the other day about someone analyzing Facebook’s latest PR, with Sandberg, Boz, and Zuckerberg seemingly speaking out a little more “off the cuff” as usual, as if they’ve been letting their frustration get the best of them and speaking publicly about ongoing events when it’d be “better” to say nothing at all. Perhaps this is one of those cases, but seeing as how Paul likes writing about what can’t/shouldn’t be said, maybe I’m not so surprised. And actually I liked this essay anyway :)

But it reminded me that Paul usually thanks people who review his essay drafts at the end.

This one was no exception, but I noticed a couple new names:

Peter Thiel, and Christine Ford.

From the Kavanaugh drama[1]? It looks like yes.

[0]: https://themargins.substack.com/p/facebooks-pr-feels-broken

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

Post reply on HN