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

How Software Companies Die (1995)

cs.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 176 posts

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#111

Post by JonnieCache »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #110
JonnieCache wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's so concerned about the fabric of society and the family why doesn't he write about the evils of divorce? The divorce rate is like 50%, whereas gayness hovers around 5% depending on who you ask. Somehow the lack of throbbing, purple-veined meatsicks must render it less compelling. EDIT: withdrawing the above childishness, turns out he does write extensively about divorce.

He has written about the evils of divorce. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html A quick search suggests he regularly incorporates criticism of divorce into his other writings. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-01-07-1.html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-03-28-1.html

Good for him. Sounds like he probably means what he says then.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#112

Post by yummyfajitas »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #97
yummyfajitas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds equivalent to "don't buy scripts or other moviemaking services from Communists." The distinction you are attempting to draw about attacking others makes little sense given the examples I cited. Opponents of polygamy, supporters of Obamacare and opponents of privacy all favor attacking others (polygamists, people who don't buy health insurance, and people who don't cooperate with spying). Most public policie…

There is still a difference between bigoted, chauvinistic superstitions and scapegoating, and disagreements about public policy happening in good faith. You haven't answered my second question. Have you at least thought about it? Also, consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies#Wagner.27s... It's just music! Why can't people "just listen to the music" which itself has nothing to do with antisemi…

I don't actually have a good answer for your second question. It's a tricky one, which is why I wrote nothing. In the specific circumstance you describe I probably wouldn't bowl with the guy - heck, I've cut people off for far less (e.g., slut shaming in my presence). On the other hand, my cofounder is a big proponent of all sorts of things I oppose (Obamacare, basic income, extreme feminism) and I have no plans to cut her off.

I suspect the reason this jumped out at me is that it's literally an attempt to ostracize a hollywood writer for his other views, and being the good liberal that I am (culturally speaking) this jumps out at me.

So I guess at this point I'm walking away with far less certainty of my views than I started with.

As for the article, you are right that it's not position #1 good. It's a well written version of the same sort of fluff that HN has way too much of, nothing more.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#113

Post by rmc »

jessaustin wrote: post #76
rmc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted You say that like it's a bad thing. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance (a) There are still lots of rights that many states and organisations do not recognise. (b) There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy.

There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy. In a society that hopes to remain free, there must be a difference between these. There must be space for dialogue, for experimentation, for uncertainty, for personal preference, for disagreement. "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory" is a totalitarian motto. For example, although I find Nancy Grace repulsive, illegitimate, unacceptable, unw…

That's the Paradox of Tolerance. Should a society trying to be a tolerate society tolerate intolerance? I say intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

Are you actually saying that we should have "discussion" or a "debate" about whether some people are people?

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#114

Post by keithpeter »

ColinWright wrote: post #42
d4nt wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling Colin may have already automated this and it's a bot posting these things.

I did have, but it's been permanently disabled. I got too much grief over it. I have scripts to assist, but all these posts are "by hand". They don't take much time, and occasionally during the search and confirmation phase I stumble across other things that are interesting, so there is some reward.

Script assisted manual commands are something I use a lot as well, I can hack up scripts and cope with minor changes in data format &c.

I'm interested in the reaction to automated posting but the comparative acceptance of 'by hand' posting. Is that simply frequency? Are you selecting which historic threads to run searches against?

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#115

Post by keithpeter »

narag wrote: post #51
Udo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes sense to have that bot as an actual separate site feature. Personally, it's not something I'd want to be mixed in with normal comments.

What about offering it as a service to the submitter from the submission page?

I have taken the precaution of searching for phrases in titles of older pages before submitting (I submit seldom) and have not submitted if previously discussed.

Such a feature would be good I think.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#116

Post by 72deluxe »

lifty wrote: post #93
72deluxe wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would live on pizzas and coffee. Seems the newer generation of programmers don't like that sort of thing! I'm not old by any stretch of the imagination, but I always thought of programmers as beardy types with awkward glasses, brown trousers and a crumpled shirt/t-shirt. (I never ironed my shirts, that's for sure!). And coffee was always black. Programmers were more like engineers. As stated, this brogrammer person…

Well, I think the difference is that now, the beards, awkward glasses and brown trousers are fashionable. So what was once ridiculed and avoided, is now praised and desirable.

That's a relief. The only thing I need to buy is a large stash of brown trousers then!

Funny how programmers years ago were generally thought of as a bit odd, nerdy types. Now they're almost "cool". Thanks App Store!

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#117

Post by xmonkee »

myhf wrote: post #11
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #2

We all know that OSC is a horrible bigot, right? I feel like any sort of fatherly advice he emits needs to be suffixed with "...unless you're gay, then you should be in prison."

Once you realize that 100% of his writing is about the self-hating gay Mormon experience, you notice a lot more subtext. In this piece, the junior programmer who becomes a middle-manager to please the marketers is a metaphor for gay Mormons who marry women to please the church.

Seriously, that makes sense. Ender with the weird sister (non)incest situation is a stand-in for the author. He's not actually a bad person, just really repressed?

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#118

Post by michaelgrafl »

purringmeow wrote: post #65
brazzy wrote: post #17

Was this as ridiculous a pastiche of clichés when it was written in 1995 as it is now? Or did programmers really only start to have social lives, dislike permanent crunch mode and plan before coding in the last 20 years? It sounds to me like Card read through the Jargon file, i.e. the self-image of a considerably earlier subculture of programmers, took it at face value, added some hyperbole and wrote it up as a kind…

And giving up "sleep, love and health"? As if I am going to part with my health for whatever salary...

Not for whatever salary. For doing what you're good at and makes you feel like god.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#119

Post by xmonkee »

Udo wrote: post #55
adamnemecek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?

> What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)? First of all, I assert being gay is not unethical. And it never was. Sure, it was considered amoral, but that's not the same. Could you elaborate on why you think an ethical argument could be constructed in favor of being militantly anti-gay?

It seems like you're purposely misinterpreting his point. He's not saying what should be, he's saying what probably was. You might have been saying that homosexuality is unethical a hundred years ago with the same certainty with which you denounce Card. I'm sure nobody here actually thinks that being gay is unethical.

Re: How Software Companies Die (1995)

#120

Post by purringmeow »

michaelgrafl wrote: post #118
purringmeow wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And giving up "sleep, love and health"? As if I am going to part with my health for whatever salary...

Not for whatever salary. For doing what you're good at and makes you feel like god.

If I get an RSI I wouldn't be able to write code :)
Post reply on HN