Hey Yahoo, You’re Optimizing the Wrong Thing • Hacker News Board

Re: Hey Yahoo, You’re Optimizing the Wrong Thing

#101

Post by cbsmith » Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 4:41 AM UTC

bootload wrote: post #100

cbsmith wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive... because, you know, being a woman isn't some kind of insult. If it had read, "He's a data geek..." it would have only have been offensive because they got the gender wrong.

"... Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive. ..." I understand the line of reasoning, however the tone of the comments about the article are negative and not up to standard. [1] It is not a question of gender but how to discuss, acknowledge & discuss an authors work in a civil…

I agree the tone of many of the comments are not up to standard. I think both mine, and and the one you chose to go after were. Neither of us questioned her professional skills, talents, intelligence, awesomeness etc., just her domain expertise (in a domain which I'd think no one would expect expertise), which seems eminently reasonable given that the only indicators were a lack of said expertise. It seems even more reasonable because she acknowledged that she does not.

You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. Try to focus on the jerks, there's an off chance they might get it.

Re: Hey Yahoo, You’re Optimizing the Wrong Thing

#102

Post by bootload » Sun, Sep 23, 2012, 9:52 AM UTC

cbsmith wrote: post #101

bootload wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive. ..." I understand the line of reasoning, however the tone of the comments about the article are negative and not up to standard. [1] It is not a question of gender but how to discuss, acknowledge & discuss an authors work in a civil…

I agree the tone of many of the comments are not up to standard. I think both mine, and and the one you chose to go after were. Neither of us questioned her professional skills, talents, intelligence, awesomeness etc., just her domain expertise (in a domain which I'd think no one would expect expertise), which seems eminently reasonable given that the only indicators were a lack of said expertise. It seems even more…

"... You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. ... Try to focus on the jerks ..."

Yes & no. I'm don't think I'm being that critical, 'why don't you refer to someone by name.' I take your point though. As for focusing on "Jerks", I ignore them. I'd rather point to measured responses like your own illustrating to "Jerks" how to respond.

Re: Hey Yahoo, You’re Optimizing the Wrong Thing

#103

Post by geofft » Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 7:25 AM UTC

batista wrote: post #94

geofft wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Chief scientist" is absolutely a real job. Why would you think it's not?

Because it's a non descriptive BS title / buzzword? Which is very common in modern business, but shouldn't happen when you have "science" in there. Lives a bad taste. Science is all about clarity and SPECIFIC fields of study. Nobody does "science" in general.

At a small company with specific goals, there's no implication of doing "'science' in general". I can buy that the idea of being chief scientist at, say, IBM or Google or Microsoft is a little fluffy, but if you're a startup focusing on one goal that is a little beyond what the scientific community knows how to do in theory, it's entirely reasonable to have a position in charge of guiding and directing (and performing) research to that goal and keeping up with the state of the field.

It's largely equivalent to a PI role of a university research project, except that there are things going on in the company other than pure research and so there are chief officers of other things too. Nobody thinks that "primary investigator" is a fluffy title on the grounds that people don't do investigation in general; it's clear they're investigating specific things.