Keep Your Identity Small (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#61

Post by simne » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

Author is right, but chosen wrong example.

Religion is not a tool, unlike programming language, limited by definition, Religion is Universe, with endless number of variants. Some religions, like protestants, are by definition distributed, they just have not some acknowledged position on many questions.

But if we talk about business, this is exact hit, in business, to convince client, you should have narrow offer, which fit this client believes, nothing more.

Why so, if you widen offer, because of steel triangle of PM, you have to raise costs, and/or lower quality.

And yes, I know about smartphones, but my estimation, at least, 10-25% of HN discussions, are about low quality of widened solutions, including smartphones, or about excellence of narrow solutions, like C64, or ST.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#62

Post by ethanbond » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:57 PM UTC

fourfoursix wrote: post #60

ethanbond wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I am observing from an objective position” is the surest sign of a deeply compromised thinker.

Except that, that quotation is a fabrication. It was never stated by me, nor was it stated in the article. It is also logically flawed. If there exists in this world someone who was truly objective. Would they know they're objective? Knowing if oneself is objective or not is in itself an objective calculation. If that person was truly objective, then the answer is yes, he would know. But I get your point, there are m…

No, believing things other people don’t believe is actually not evidence of objectivity.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#63

Post by fourfoursix » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:57 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #23

ethanbond wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I am observing from an objective position” is the surest sign of a deeply compromised thinker.

Yeah, while I would in theory applaud the example of "scientist" that Graham gave, let's not delude ourselves, it's quite vulnerable to exactly this kind of failure mode. Some other examples : scientism, "angry atheism", "rationalism" (mostly for the arrogant and historically opposite meaning for that last one)...

No post body was provided.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#64

Post by yuuu » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

mdp2021 wrote: post #50

hypoqtech wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it is a fact, I mean, these days there are heterosexual people who call themselves queer.

> who call themselves In which sense? Because 'queer' means "eccentric" - many would describe as that. For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Incidentally: the queer use of 'queer' predates that of 'gay' (just a piece of trivia).

> For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous".

Uh... I don't think people do that anymore.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#65

Post by the_gipsy » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

Mr. Graham does have a big political identity (on twitter). Sure, he shares more anecdotes about raising his kids than "anti-woke" messages, but it doesn't hold up against this essay.

His essay might still be right of course.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#66

Post by mdp2021 » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

yuuu wrote: post #64

mdp2021 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who call themselves In which sense? Because 'queer' means "eccentric" - many would describe as that. For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Incidentally: the queer use of 'queer' predates that of 'gay' (just a piece of trivia).

> For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Uh... I don't think people do that anymore.

They do, and some will absolutely do (to some it is important to "assess" language) - it really depends on what you mean with "people" (of course I meant a subset).

What happened there is, in the succession of editings I left that 'people' there in a way that happened to be ambiguous. I made a composition error out of inattention.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#67

Post by midhhhthrow » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

Absolutely. Identification and all the labels you carry are the source of most conflict.

Sages of the east have recognized this for thousands of years and seek to dissolve the ego, dissolve all the labels that we think we are.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#68

Post by fourfoursix » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #62

fourfoursix wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, that quotation is a fabrication. It was never stated by me, nor was it stated in the article. It is also logically flawed. If there exists in this world someone who was truly objective. Would they know they're objective? Knowing if oneself is objective or not is in itself an objective calculation. If that person was truly objective, then the answer is yes, he would know. But I get your point, there are m…

No, believing things other people don’t believe is actually not evidence of objectivity.

[flagged]

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#69

Post by philwelch » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

doubled112 wrote: post #17

RajT88 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In tech, people ascribe you an identity as much as you claim one yourself. When I am not around, I have been described to people as "A DevOps guy" or "A Network Guy". People then treat me accordingly. But, being human (or an approximation thereof), I am not just one thing.

I've always tried to go with (or steer toward) something like "a problem solver". I just like to solve problems. Sometimes it's builds and deploys, sometimes it's the network, and sometimes it's the car in the driveway. Give me a few, I'll figure something out.

"Problem solver" is so vague as to be meaningless. I'm pretty sure literally all human action could be characterized as problem solving.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#70

Post by simne » Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

kethinov wrote: post #2

Since Paul wrote that, people have made so many more things part of their identity, including JavaScript which he points out in the essay was not a particularly identity-charged topic in 2009. With the rise of the frameworks, it has become an identity-charged topic with JS devs now segregated into tribes that insist on using their preferred framework for every webapp they build. It's not about assessing the right too…

JavaScript is just wrong example. It very early has become uber-tool, when appear first specification of ECMA-script (essentially same gramma, but was universal language not tied to eny platform or specifics).

But if talk about business, I remember Ford's phrase: "develop product, which will fit expectations of 80% of your clients; 10% will just change mind; 10% will pay additional money for customization".