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

My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

thingist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–249 of 249 posts

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#241

Post by kwantam »

nmaio wrote: post #166
khafra wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-infectious ignorance can be left alone. A state senator with a PR platform, using it to spread ignorance of a sort that ruins millions of lives, cannot be left alone in good conscience. You have a moral obligation to be less wrong: http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-...

Regardless of reach, I still don't believe attacking or embarrassing someone is the answer. My conscience is better off letting someone have a right to their own opinion (albeit a poor one), rather than attacking them for it. In other words, I'd rather choose to understand where their point of view is coming from and accept it, than to try and change it.

Think of it this way: he's not attacking the politician for her opinion. He's attacking her for attempting to make her stupid opinion into a matter of public policy.

Everyone is welcome to have their opinions. When one attempts to act on those opinions in a way that's harmful to other people, one cannot but expect others to oppose.

Let's say I believe that three-year-olds can fly if only they're forced into a situation where they must do so in order to save their lives. It's a stupid opinion, but it's harmless if it's just a thought sitting in my head.

Now let's say I decide that I need to teach a bunch of three-year-olds to tap their innate flying ability by throwing them off a bridge. Is stopping me from doing so disrespectful of my opinion? Would that actually give you pause in stopping me?

Respecting someone's opinion is fine and dandy, but your inalienable right to your opinion stops when it starts motivating action involving others; at that point, the general rules regarding your rights when interacting with other people apply.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#242

Post by stcredzero »

danssig wrote: post #230
stcredzero wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it as evolution in action. (And I shall take this whole post as a call to clean up my act.)

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic. Surely it has a large social aspect (i.e. can't be "bread out")?

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic.

Only to people who have a shallow understanding of evolution. (Left as an exercise to student.)

(i.e. can't be "bread out")?

Unfortunately, no. [irony captioned for the impaired]

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#243

Post by danenania »

count wrote: post #205
danenania wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to diminish the importance of doing good work, but the reality is that knowledge and expertise are part of a continuum and even well-respected experts can easily make mistakes. If you're trying to make a living, you have to attempt to sell yourself at whatever level you're at, then work to keep improving. It's the customer's responsibility to do due diligence and discover potentially critical gaps in expertise, n…

I fully agree with you - everybody has to start somewhere, and nobody gets ahead just doing things they're 100% comfortable with. That said, if you're going to give the impression that you can swim in the deep end, you need to be fully prepared to suffer the blowback if it's discovered that you actually can't swim in the deep end. In response to the due diligence - this sort of goes down a rathole, but the industry a…

I agree that the issues you mention are important, but unless these requirements are spelled out in a contract, there is definitely no basis for legal liability, and any attempt to establish one is guaranteed to be a disaster. Caveat emptor! The alternatives are much worse.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#244

Post by squasher »

I see a lot of threads go by on HN along the lines of "why aren't there more women in technology?" and then lots of replies along the lines of "I guess they are just allergic to keyboards. Too bad!"

This article, particularly the section about attitude towards noobs, is all tied up in why some women never go deep into programming. There are lots of other reasons too, but this one is especially well articulated by the OP.

If you are in the keyboard-allergist camp, ponder this one long and hard.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#245

Post by danssig »

stcredzero wrote: post #242
danssig wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic. Surely it has a large social aspect (i.e. can't be "bread out")?

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic. Only to people who have a shallow understanding of evolution. (Left as an exercise to student.) (i.e. can't be "bread out")? Unfortunately, no. [irony captioned for the impaired]

The tone of this post seems to indicate your effort to "clean up your act" isn't going very well.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#246

Post by vecter »

reinhardt wrote: post #209
cabalamat wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone please explain the logic behind "condescending feedback = insecurity"? If someone has low status, this may cause them to criticise others, in an effort to cause the others to have even lower social status.

This may explain only the one direction of the equivalences: "low status" => "insecurity" => "condescending feedback", not the inverse. We can all come up with examples of high status individuals demonstrating condescending behaviour.

You're right, but you can't "prove" condescension implies insecurity in any rigor. I think it's reasoning along the lines of A => B, we see lots of B, so probably A.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#247

Post by vecter »

danssig wrote: post #232
kiiski wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to wikipedia, he was worth 6,5 billion. So probably the $60 million just didn't matter to him so much.

But that means it's not a fair bet. Had I been in the situation and had some idea of his value I would have said: "Very well, all my money versus all of yours. I choose tails."

Because betting $6.5 billion to win $60 million (and vice versa) is fair?

That aside, fairness has nothing to do with it.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#248

Post by agentultra »

generalk wrote: post #236
agentultra wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're really talking about two different issues. I'm not even talking about doing something as silly as charging a client money for something you barely know how to do. That's just deceptive business practice and people should be lambasted for it. Misrepresenting your capabilities is reprehensible. What I'm talking about and what I think the OP was talking about is the negative attitude we have towards our fe…

My original point was that it's not necessarily "deceptive business practice." For example: when I first built my buddy's business site, I wasn't knowingly half-assing his work, or attempting to extract maximum profit for minimum work. I was giving a good faith best-effort, which unfortunately (and unbeknownst to either of us) was well generally below accepted practices. Now, should someone have yelled at me and told…

I don't think calling someone an "idiot" helps them become better.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#249

Post by stcredzero »

danssig wrote: post #245
stcredzero wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic. Only to people who have a shallow understanding of evolution. (Left as an exercise to student.) (i.e. can't be "bread out")? Unfortunately, no. [irony captioned for the impaired]

The tone of this post seems to indicate your effort to "clean up your act" isn't going very well.

Well, some cases are more difficult than others. High amounts of stupidity are more challenging.
Post reply on HN