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

“We assumed every user had an IQ greater than 42”

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: “We assumed every user had an IQ greater than 42”

#11

Post by devnonymous »

Just out of curiosity (after reading antirez's comment here), I took a look at wwat's github contributions:

  https://github.com/wwat?tab=contributions&period=monthly
  https://github.com/wwat?tab=activity
I think the account has been specifically created to troll github projects. The ^contributions^ have been bug reports in various projects with similar trollish language and tone. Do you supposed GH would act if we flag this user ?

Re: “We assumed every user had an IQ greater than 42”

#12

Post by Arnt »

wwat seems to be a troll, but I have an assistant called Puppet whose IQ is clearly below 42.

Puppet has confusified such things in three entirely different ways that I can recall right now, but I have a feeling that Antirez would direct his snark at me, not at Puppet. (IMO Puppet and the program being configured shared the blame.)

Programs such as redis should not assume that their operators have perfect insight and use only bug-free tools.

Re: “We assumed every user had an IQ greater than 42”

#13

Post by gyoza »

karka91 wrote: post #5

The reporter seems to be a troll. Quick look at his activity shows that most of his comments are snarky and ill-mannered like the one here

I think hes actually trying to use this software and just being a dickhead.

He probably hates life so he's just taking it out on people where he can.

He probably hates to be "bothered" in any aspect, whether looking at log files, or respecting others as it would require too much effort on his part.

I know lots of developers who have this problem.

Re: “We assumed every user had an IQ greater than 42”

#14

Post by spdustin »

Agreed that the issue opener is a bit of a troll (and antirez: don't feed the trolls!), but let's step back a moment and separate the content from the subtext.

Context: Error messages reach users, by their nature, when something has gone wrong. It's likely that, in that moment, the user's amygdala has started sounding an alarm that the brain's prediction about the outcome of an operation did not come true. It is, quite literally, an emotional moment. A feeling of vulnerability, even if only for an instant, is the first and most profound response when a user encounters an error. Humans further tend to anthropomorphize the systems they interact with - a natural shortcut the brain takes to understand a system that seems to have intelligence - and a cold, unforgiving error message lashing out in a moment of vulnerability seems almost malevolent.

Content: If error messages considered the momentary mental state of a user when they're feeling raw from their expectation not being met - the error resulting from their action - they would be more helpful to the user, and allow them to be self-sufficient, which increases their feeling of well-being and satisfaction with a system. As developers, we can "be right" or we can "be happy" - sure, it's right to say something went wrong. But it's happy when the friendliness of an error message means that a user can resolve an error condition without having to submit an issue to the help desk.

Post reply on HN