Live data from Hacker News

Blogging can just be stating the obvious

blog.jim-nielsen.com

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#121
An engineer friend of mine, after a decade in industry where he rose to management, decided to go get an MBA at a top ten management school. Compared to engineering, he said it was easy, since everything they teach you is obvious common sense.

I thought that meant the degree was worthless. But he said just the opposite. Even though it's all obvious common sense, it really helps to have someone lay it all out together and remind you to think about those obvious common sense things as you go about managing a business.

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#122

There's also just so much overwhelmingly bad advice out there that sometimes, stating the obvious real thing is worth doing.

That's true. And answers that seem obvious later, aren't obvious when you're young or less informed.

My personal example: I had to do a lot of research, distillation of sources, and so on, in about 2001, to figure out the answer to a simple question:

Can a person truly be a professional poker player--that is, be able to profit consistently in a proveable way, not some kind of lucky tournament win and then you masquerade as a pro--or is that a bullshit dream held up by a few desperate gamblers?

I recall it took about a week before I felt confident about my answer and I had to overcome my own bias.

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#123

Stating the obvious (or maybe not). A bit of internet history, the word blog comes from web log, and shorten to take just the last 4 letters. I like actually taking the full form weblog and nudging the space we get also 'we blog'.

Bit of extra Internet history:

Blogs existed in a previous iteration, before anyone coined the weblog term. The community called them E/N sites.

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#124
Please continue to blog about the obvious stuff. It happens all of the time that I want to explain to someone what I think is an obvious concept and then I am sometimes surprised to find out that there are no good blogs where I could link to for an explanation...

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first penguin certainly rewards the orcas.

That's quite a novel negative counterpart to "the early bird catches the worm"

The early worm gets the bird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Worm_Gets_the_Bird>

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#126

A blog can say some things a “real” media outlet can’t. How could The New York Times rail against enshittification when it is a poster child?

You ask how could they ... but they do, at least some of the time:

Can Cory Doctorow's Book 'Enshittification' Change the ... https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/05/books/review/cory-doctoro...>

Opinion | We Didn't Ask for This Internet https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/06/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...>

Among numerous other results.

The NYT is a complex organisation, and represents and even broader set of viewpoints (Tim Wu, author of one of the pieces above, isn't an NYT employee). As with most commercial publications, it serves multiple goals, some at conflict with one another, including seeking both subscription and advertising revenues being at odds with disseminating ideas and influencing culture and power. ... and another

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#127
Writing, anywhere, serves multiple ends.

There's spreading new wisdom. There's sharing your own recent discoveries. There's bearing witness to a phenomenon, or adding one's own voice to support or opposition to it (both of which apply to the Gruber example noted here). There is documenting your own path, hopefully forward. There's simply sharing commonplaces and the quotidian, which whilst not grand or spectacular often serves to record or fill in the details which make up a place or time. (One of my own favourite finds at museums are the incidental details, whether within a larger work or of themselves: everyday elements within a painting, small studies or sketches, archeological artefacts such as the gaming pieces, make-up tools and materials, and sand toilets dating from pharonic Egypt of 5,000 years ago.

I do seek novel discoveries myself, I may have made a small handful. More usually, if I think of something I look to see who might have come across the idea first. If I'm quite lucky, I'm only a few decades behind the vanguard. Generally I see that not as a failure but a sign that I'm treading interesting ground, and not too far from the frontier itself.

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#129

Thank you for sharing this observation. I had a post on here this week that was briefly popular. There were numerous folks who posted that the material “wasn’t new.” I felt like it should be implicit that people who already know what I was writing about are not the target audience. But here they were, commenting. At the same time, the page got upvoted quite a lot and the comments were filled with folks who had lots o…

> ...I believe we shouldn’t index on novelty- we should index on impact...

I was about to reply that hey, i like novelty...but, then thought about it, and agree with you! I think you're totally right! What i *really* like is the impact that novelty might have. So, novelty might merely be one of several vehicles to convey impact/value!

Re: Blogging can just be stating the obvious

#130
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure how you mean "style," You essentially coupled "I used to do this thing, and now I'm really credentialed but I don't do this thing any more" with "the ones most capable of elucidating existing ideas can be the ones least motivated to do so." > Religion is a primeval failure mode of language, in my opinion, or at least an example of language being used not to communicate information, but to engage in social,…

> You essentially coupled "I used to do this thing, and now I'm really credentialed but I don't do this thing any more" with "the ones most capable of elucidating existing ideas can be the ones least motivated to do so." I read that as a reference to Dunning-Kruger.

The second statement could, standing by itself, certainly be a reference to Dunning-Kruger.

In which case, I'm not sure how you read the first statement other than "I'm at the high end of capability on the Dunning-Kruger curve."

Post reply on HN