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

FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

rubenugarte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#21

Post by ziddoap »

Swizec wrote: post #13
ziddoap wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not much that is more annoying than an author assuming the reader knows the acronyms that they want to use. This particular case isn't as bad as others, but especially when getting into any sort of technical conversation it's wildly frustrating to see multiple acronyms used with no indication of what they stand for. Then you go to look it up and there's like 29 results that fit the acronym, half of them bein…

> There is not much that is more annoying than an author assuming the reader knows the acronyms that they want to use Sometimes you're not the intended audience and that's okay too. Constantly explaining acronyms that everyone in the audience uses daily gets frustrating too. Imagine if every article written for senior software engineers in VC-backed companies had to re-explain what PR, CI, VC and AWS stand for. Or if…

>Constantly explaining acronyms

Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly".

>Sometimes you're not the intended audience

Often times I run into this issue when I am the intended audience, but may not be familiar with the trendiest acronym to describe something. Or I'm familiar with 2-3 uses of the same acronym and am not sure which one is applicable.

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#23

Post by krisoft »

mcherm wrote: post #17
Swizec wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is not much that is more annoying than an author assuming the reader knows the acronyms that they want to use Sometimes you're not the intended audience and that's okay too. Constantly explaining acronyms that everyone in the audience uses daily gets frustrating too. Imagine if every article written for senior software engineers in VC-backed companies had to re-explain what PR, CI, VC and AWS stand for. Or if…

When I write, I typically DO spell these things out. > We accepted a pull request ("PR") for our continuous integration ("CI") server. As a result, CI will now automatically trigger a canary release instead of the old blue-green deployment process, except on AWS where canary releases are not supported. Note that there's no real interruption to the flow of the writing, as I only spell it out the first time it is menti…

You also don’t bother explaining what canary releases are. Which is weird. Who is your intended audience with that example? Is this some imaginary audience who knows and cares about canary releases and blue-green deployment but somehow missed out on PRs and CI?

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#24

Post by TameAntelope »

I would love to have whatever problems Google has, and if FOMO is how Google got to be/remain Google, please yes give me lots and lots of FOMO...

My point is that maybe one of the most successful companies on the planet might not be a good example for illustrating "disastrous company strategies".

I do agree, generally, with the article FWIW.

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#25

Post by ziddoap »

dangus wrote: post #19
ziddoap wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this one isn't much of an issue, didn't I? But it's related to a bigger complaint of mine, which has had non-trivial consequences in the past, so I talked about it.

But that bigger complaint didn't come up in this case, so why are we talking about it? It's not like the article dives into terms like SE, ICP, AE, CSM, or anything like that. "Non-trivial consequences," lol, cracks me up. Won't anyone think of all the lost productivity?

Are you the comment police or something?

I replied to someone talking about not spelling out acronyms by talking more about not spelling out acronyms.

I don't know much more on topic I could possibly be.

Sorry if I offended I guess? I'll try not to discuss things as much on this discussion board.

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#26

Post by aloisdg »

TameAntelope wrote: post #24

I would love to have whatever problems Google has, and if FOMO is how Google got to be/remain Google, please yes give me lots and lots of FOMO... My point is that maybe one of the most successful companies on the planet might not be a good example for illustrating "disastrous company strategies". I do agree, generally, with the article FWIW.

What is `FWIW`? For What It's Worth I guess?

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#27

Post by wizofaus »

krisoft wrote: post #23
mcherm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I write, I typically DO spell these things out. > We accepted a pull request ("PR") for our continuous integration ("CI") server. As a result, CI will now automatically trigger a canary release instead of the old blue-green deployment process, except on AWS where canary releases are not supported. Note that there's no real interruption to the flow of the writing, as I only spell it out the first time it is menti…

You also don’t bother explaining what canary releases are. Which is weird. Who is your intended audience with that example? Is this some imaginary audience who knows and cares about canary releases and blue-green deployment but somehow missed out on PRs and CI?

You can at least easily Google "canary release" I suppose, in a way that's going to give a clear answer vs googling "PR" or "CI" (which will likely tell you PR means public relations and CI is the symbol for a "curie"/unit of radiation).

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#28

Post by dangus »

ziddoap wrote: post #25
dangus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that bigger complaint didn't come up in this case, so why are we talking about it? It's not like the article dives into terms like SE, ICP, AE, CSM, or anything like that. "Non-trivial consequences," lol, cracks me up. Won't anyone think of all the lost productivity?

Are you the comment police or something? I replied to someone talking about not spelling out acronyms by talking more about not spelling out acronyms. I don't know much more on topic I could possibly be. Sorry if I offended I guess? I'll try not to discuss things as much on this discussion board.

Actually, I'm your boss. My unemployment story was a ruse! Get back to work!

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#29

Post by SimDeBeau »

aloisdg wrote: post #26
TameAntelope wrote: post #24

I would love to have whatever problems Google has, and if FOMO is how Google got to be/remain Google, please yes give me lots and lots of FOMO... My point is that maybe one of the most successful companies on the planet might not be a good example for illustrating "disastrous company strategies". I do agree, generally, with the article FWIW.

What is `FWIW`? For What It's Worth I guess?

Yes

Re: FOMO is disastrous for company strategies

#30

Post by OrderlyTiamat »

ziddoap wrote: post #21
Swizec wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is not much that is more annoying than an author assuming the reader knows the acronyms that they want to use Sometimes you're not the intended audience and that's okay too. Constantly explaining acronyms that everyone in the audience uses daily gets frustrating too. Imagine if every article written for senior software engineers in VC-backed companies had to re-explain what PR, CI, VC and AWS stand for. Or if…

> Constantly explaining acronyms Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly". > Sometimes you're not the intended audience Often times I run into this issue when I am the intended audience, but may not be familiar with the trendiest acronym to describe something. Or I'm familiar with 2-3 uses of the same acronym and am not sure which one is applicable.

>Writing out an acronym one time in your paper/article/blog is not "constantly".

Exactly, and neither is it explaining.

I don't get what the big deal is, "fear of missing out (FOMO)" is just four words extra, once, and you don't need to write an essay on the etymology of the term or something. It just ensures we're all on the same page and when it's not clear to someone they can google it. Do people not know how many overlapping abbreviations there are? It's almost like the acronyms are shortening the words somehow to a smaller representation that is not necessarily unique.

Post reply on HN