141–150 of 262 posts
I wrote my story and titled it, "My experience at work with an automated HR system". I sent it to a few friends, only a couple of them read it. A week later, I renamed it to "The Machine Fired Me". That seemed to capture it better. The goal wasn't to make it click bait, but it was to put the spoiler, and punch line right up front. It blew up! I had just read Life of Pi, and one thing I like about that book is that yo…
Always found them interesting.
Careful with this advice. If you max it out you end up with "You won't believe the weird trick that the city of Venice did to feed itself"
Once upon a time "one weird trick" was good advice too, before it got ran into the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure it destroys something in you as well. So many context changes with no relation whatsoever and regular hooks that give you a pinch. We haven't evolved for that. Our brain is trying to figure out a narrative between two things following each other. It needs time to process stuff. And there is so much shock it can absorb at once. So many "?!" and open loops in a day. I made a TikTok account to at least know…
Thirty years ago, I read a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, in which he made very similar points about broadcast television. I don't remember all his points, but I vividly remember how talked about how you'll be watching a news story about something awful, maybe an earthquake in which hundreds of people died, and then with practically no warning you'll be hearing a happy jingle from a toothpast…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing people complain that the internet isn't as weird and fun as it used to be. The weird and fun stuff is all on TikTok! Here's a guy who rigged a theremin and a hurdy gurdy up to Singer sewing machine and performs spectacular covers on it https://www.tiktok.com/@singersoundsystem/video/751772710192... And here's someone living my dream, he moved to the Scottish Highlands to start a workshop creating mechan…
Opinions of what's "weird and fun" can vary a lot. I find this stuff about as appealing as watching AI-generated Queen Elizabeth fight Stephen Hawking, or someone sneaking into Chernobyl to practice their parkour. I don't want "weird and fun" anymore, and neither does everyone else who avoids TikTok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing people complain that the internet isn't as weird and fun as it used to be. The weird and fun stuff is all on TikTok! Here's a guy who rigged a theremin and a hurdy gurdy up to Singer sewing machine and performs spectacular covers on it https://www.tiktok.com/@singersoundsystem/video/751772710192... And here's someone living my dream, he moved to the Scottish Highlands to start a workshop creating mechan…
> I keep seeing people complain that the internet isn't as weird and fun as it used to be. The weird and fun stuff is all on TikTok! This is classic equivocation fallacy.
What are the multiple meanings to the same phrase? Presumably "weird and fun" is what you're calling out? But to me their post looks like it's using the exact same meaning both times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just finished this response to a sibling comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46760312 I think it inadvertently touches on some valid points that you raise, especially the one about criticizing people within earshot. > Gwern seems to be onto something about how to engage readers. What do you think that is? I think that people read for different reasons; there are different kinds of readers. I thin…
That's a great response; thanks. I would guess you are right that Gwern particularly appeals to the HN crowd, though that might be saying the obvious. Personally - and I don't think my perception is somehow superior to anyone else's - I think Gwern's writing has a clear voice. > I just finished this response to a sibling comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46760312 I didn't write the parent comment…
s/sibling comment of/comment that’s a sibling to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's risky business inferring personality from writing samples because people can and do adopt different styles in their writing depending on circumstance and whimsy. As an exercise, read something from James Mickens, and try to imitate his style for some other technical topic. It's actually not that hard, at least to get within throwing distance, refinement is always possible. He probably doesn't write family letter…
I appreciate your take on misanthropy. I returned to the topic in another comment in a way I think you may find apt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46760901 >. Additionally I appreciate the extent to which our perceptions on literature differ. This was an enlightening exchange. In an attempt to retain decorum between us I will withhold speculation on the character of (Mr?) Cameron Pierce whose work you made men…
I didn't have a particular letter in mind but the topic comes up at various places in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, especially in his remarks about sub-creation. I decided to ctrl-f my digital copy and I'll point you to Letter 213 for a direct remark. It's 3 paragraphs, here's the first:
> I do not like giving 'facts' about myself other than 'dry' ones (which anyway are quite as relevant to my books as any other more Juicy details). Not simply for personal reasons; but also because I object to the contemporary trend in criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention from an author's works (if the works are in fact worthy of attention), and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the main interest. But only one's guardian Angel, or indeed God Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal facts and an author's works. Not the author himself (though he knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called 'psychologists'.
I'm in agreement with Tolkien here.
I wonder if you've ever read A Modest Proposal? If not: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm But if so I still wonder if you can put yourself in the frame of mind of not having read it and not knowing anything about it, and thus recreating an approximation for how you would read such a piece for the first time. What do you make of it? What do you make of Dr. Jonathan Swift? Do you have enough historical knowledge to put yourself in 1729 and interpret it as a person from that era, instead of our modern cynical and irony-poisoned one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a great response; thanks. I would guess you are right that Gwern particularly appeals to the HN crowd, though that might be saying the obvious. Personally - and I don't think my perception is somehow superior to anyone else's - I think Gwern's writing has a clear voice. > I just finished this response to a sibling comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46760312 I didn't write the parent comment…
Oops, uhh. s/sibling comment of/comment that’s a sibling to Hope it makes more sense now.
This is something I find fascinating about TikTok: on that platform you literally get a few seconds to catch the attention of your audience before they skip to the next video. You can't just find one hook that works and reuse it forever because people will get bored of it - including if that hook is heavily used by other accounts. This makes TikTok a fascinating brute-force attack on human psychology, with literally…
Biology tends to disagree.