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

How to Write Usefully

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 308 posts

Re: How to Write Usefully

#271

Post by gfxgirl »

lliamander wrote: post #261
tptacek wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I want to perpetuate a discussion about my post on this thread, but "use Signal" isn't the claim we make; "use any modern secure messenger, they are all better than email" is the claim we made.

Fair enough. I was attempting to be succinct, but the correction is appropriate (I believe you did say that Signal was "standard" and "best"). Btw, I did find your essay persuasive. In my search for a paid email provider (as an alternative to Gmail) I've decided not to go for one that uses E2E encrypted email. If I need secure messaging, I'll use Signal (or something similar) but for email I would rather go for featu…

Signal is shit because it requires me to identify by phone number. I might not have a phone number. I travel and switch sims. My phone number is a magnet for robocalls. Phone numbers are easy to steal. Asking for my phone number is a non-starter and a sign the Signal devs are idiots.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#272

Post by lngnmn1 »

Trying to surpass Arthur Schopenhauer with advice on writing is a bit too arrogant, but not for pg.

I also like obligatory mentioning of rtm as a role model. Even since the days of arc.arc rtm is the driving force.

As for writing - some selected Upanishads and Buddha's sutras still have no equal. It is a written communication in the highest form. And yes, it is that simple.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#273

Post by austhrow743 »

upofadown wrote: post #243
jarnagin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372005

That was a straightforward observation that the writer of the original article was being pointlessly condescending and that they were alienating the people they were ostensibly trying to help. In general, personally attacking your audience is not an effective writing technique.

Disagree with pointless. I'm just some guy but I've noticed encrypted email booming in popularity the last few years. Seems like every second nerd I know uses proton now.

Assuming these guys have been fighting the good fight the whole time, I can see why a hail mary switch in tone could be warranted. They're losing. Just staying the path and being agreeable and conciliatory would be what is pointless.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#274

Post by teddyh »

tpaschalis wrote: post #235
xvector wrote: post #2

My English teachers rewarded flowery, verbose writing. Over time I found this unwieldy and now I find myself re-reading my sentences to see what I can delete. It's satisfying, like deleting unused code in a messy codebase. I envy writers who manage to densely pack information in sentences that are beautiful to read.

It's satisfying because it's also surprisingly hard! Like Mark Twain once said "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one."

> Like Mark Twain once said

No he didn’t. It was Blaise Pascal:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

Re: How to Write Usefully

#275

Post by copperx »

hinkley wrote: post #265
osdiab wrote: post #12

While the internet is full of garbage writing, I don't feel like telling people that they shouldn't say anything wrong or potentially unimportant is the right way to go. That's a perfectionist attitude that stifles people's ability to explore, experiment, be wrong, learn, improve, and act. Like learning a language, if you never speak it because you're afraid to say something wrong, you'll never learn. And separately,…

It's the sort of advice you get from either a worrier or someone who has already perfected their craft. And in an era where people talk a lot about how others achieve something and then 'close the door behind them', well, this is closing the door behind you, Paul.

Your comment is useful, bold, and correct.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#276

Post by wozniacki »

xkemp wrote: post #207
luord wrote: post #128

Interestingly, I saw an example of the phenomenon of people getting mad at the certainty of an essay in this very site, a few days ago. Someone was telling the author that he would achieve more if he phrased his point in a more "polite" way, just because the certainty of the writing made the critic mad. Thankfully, the author was here in the comments responding, and he didn't budge. That interaction was very refreshi…

I believe people arguing "politeness" are missing the point, though. What I most value is "dialectics" (not sure if that term is commonly used in English). I. e. the willingness to entertain the best argument against your position in good faith. Two people who are excellent in doing so (and familiar to HN) would be Scott Alexander of slatestarcodex, and Matt Levine at Bloomberg. (Someone rather bad at it, usually arg…

Could you highlight a piece of writing by Matt that appealed to the part you alluded to:

  the willingness to entertain the best argument against
  your position in good faith.
For example someone quoted this article on Goldman Sachs in previous HN posts off late

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-05/goldma...

A clear and even-keeled accommodating of an argument - one very discordant from your own argument - is a rare find these days. People feign even-handedness but what seems a fair shake to them doesnt to others who happen to sit a little further, in the spectrum of opinions.

I want to see if Matt measures up.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#277

Post by dvdsgl »

Before I make some caustic remarks, I’d like to say that I think pg is a curious, genuine, and beneficent person. I am not trying to troll or to be cruel, but rather to give a negative but sincere response, as contrast, in a community that tends to adulate pg.

Reading this essay was like kissing a person you didn’t know died six hours ago—you expect warmth, but instead, your vivid lips collide with a cold, bloodless, unresponsive substance.

This is tedious stuff. Not one hint of humor, no detectable pulse. Pedestrian truths expressed in the dullest possible language. Lifeless.

For an essay that starts with the question “What should an essay be?”, I hope not to read many more essays like this.

The fact that this boring essay is so popular here lowers my opinion of HN.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#278

Post by WhompingWindows »

xvector wrote: post #2

My English teachers rewarded flowery, verbose writing. Over time I found this unwieldy and now I find myself re-reading my sentences to see what I can delete. It's satisfying, like deleting unused code in a messy codebase. I envy writers who manage to densely pack information in sentences that are beautiful to read.

They're English teachers, they view language through the lens of literature. If you read Faulkner, you'll find extremely long and verbose sentences. If you read Hemingway or McCarthy, you'll find much more economic and sparing use of words.

The problem is outside of literature, readers want knowledge, not pretty language. I think many teachers lead their students astray, as the vast majority of us write for knowledge and not for prettiness.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#280

Post by wozniacki »

Uhhrrr wrote: post #218
Psyladine wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policing tone is passive aggressive censorship & bias. It's as hideous a concept as 'culture appropriation' or the cult of positivity. https://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977

"Tone policing" is a term made up by rude people in an attempt to excuse themselves for being rude. If someone in your group is yelling "fuck you" at another group, it's never going to help, and it's okay to point that out.

Someone likened the cult of positivity, to a trend in Silicon Valley employers that emerged over the past decade or so.

The trend of offering employees, unlimited & unrestricted vacation time.

Some people argued - and I fully agree with them - that while on paper the offered vacation time is unlimited, what it really meant in action was that your vacation time was unlimited,

* contingent on your readiness to accept any work load, shoved to your plate, equivalent or more in volume, that was displaced from the time you were gone.

* contingent on your willingness to accept blame for any "fires" that they had to put out in your absence, emerging from you not being there in your full working capacity.

and other stuff that went without saying and is implied in such matters.

So not even close to unlimited vacation in that sense.

This also meant employees feared taking anytime off because of all the implied risk.

Sometimes not even the amount of vacation they would take if they had clearly defined paid time off.

So it was a practice that was thoroughly hollow and false, even in intent.

Goes without saying, we need a lot less of this kind of faux positivity, masquerading in our lives.

Post reply on HN