91–100 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there is no “roof rule” on the page they linked
It might have been AutoCorrect, and the “social rules” the original comment makes hundred times more sense that way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former. Presume you're referring to [1], not the page you linked, and one might be inclined to accuse you of __feigning surprise__ but if not: using the roof is a quite common expectation in mid-rise buildings in big cities like NY, though not usually in a building you don't yourself own/lease in. 1. https://www.recurse.co…
Why would you think they are talking about an entirely different page and topic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the rule should regularly be broken. That's not what they say, and it's not what they mean. The strongest interpretation is: err on the side of not acting surprised at people's questions, because it tends to put people off asking them. I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them. Could the rule be written to convey the intent more clearly? Yes, I think so. Is it…
> I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them. I share a similar apprehension, although it's hard to put into words exactly. Across the entire document, really. Like, it's clearly well intended, and not too bad of a match for things I would advocate myself. But at the same time it's suggestive of an impossibly high standard, and I have trauma from seeing "standards that can be int…
There is a difference between saying "I worry that these rules are too open for interpretation" and "these rules only pretend to be sensible and fair, they are clearly intended as weapons made in bad faith, the jury is rigged and I will not even consider any other interpretation". The first point is open and constructive, the other rejects other perspectives outright and dismisses the possibility of understanding and compromise. You're making the first point; the comments I replied to above seem essentially to be doing the latter, and that's what I'm arguing against.
I don't really see a difference between applying maximalist intepretations of rules to treat people unfairly on the one hand, or on the other, using maximalist interpretations of rules to dismiss good-faith rules _a priori_, that is, to use a certain reading of rules to accuse people of conspiring to use them in a certain way. How on earth are you going to make any rule that is immune to either?
In fact, I think both are the exact indentical failure to not be a dick, by the same method, just approached from opposing sides. They're born of the same inflexibility, the same uwillingness to extend other people some credit, and I do not envy anyone who has to deal with either of them as a result of trying to bring people together for some common good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the rule should regularly be broken. That's not what they say, and it's not what they mean. The strongest interpretation is: err on the side of not acting surprised at people's questions, because it tends to put people off asking them. I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them. Could the rule be written to convey the intent more clearly? Yes, I think so. Is it…
Agreed - the rule does not say, nor do they mean that the rule should be broken regularly. I was saying that because it is true, because it's not a good rule as written. Once again, I'm reading (and quoting!) the rules exactly as wrttien by them. > it doesn’t matter whether they’re pretending to be surprised or actually surprised Moreover, like the sibling to this comment, I take exception to the entire document but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might have been AutoCorrect, and the “social rules” the original comment makes hundred times more sense that way
The social rules page links to the code of conduct, which contains a rule about the roof. The most sensible interpretation to me is that OP wanted to comment on both, possibly forgetting that they had to follow a link to the roof rule, or maybe actively considering both pages to be a single unit. That would be the"strongest interpretation" of OPs comment, which the local guidelines prefer us to respond to.
I like the definition of social rules [0]. I also wonder whether the roof rule was written preemptively or retrospectively -- I hope the former. I have my own thanks to give to HN. It's connected me to interesting people, online and IRL. It's led to some very strong friendships. It's led me to multiple job opportunities, and usually the better ones. It's changing of course, but I've had a great time in this community…
How did you connect with people from hn and made irl friendships with them?
I’m not sure I understand Recurse. Self-directed self-improvement. “Attending remotely” is even more self-directed. Ok, so Recurse is providing accountability partners or something similar? How is Recurse making money? I don’t see a pricing or tuition page.