Live data from Hacker News

Nonplussed

techcrunch.com

151–160 of 250 posts

Re: Nonplussed

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is google's own version of "the burning platform" (that is, the open web, in some of the more paranoid exec's vision). They are doing everything they can think of to fence off their own portion of the web before it's too late. Every product division has been (or had been) instructed to come up with a plan to integrate somehow with G+. This current youtube disaster is one of the results.

The amazing thing was they managed to blow thirteen years' good will in about two months. All gone. When techies are seriously considering using Bing for search ... you know your brand's gone toxic. If they'd just backed off in the nymwars, WE'D ALL BE OVER THERE NOW. Fucksakes.

It was specifically the nymwars that drove me out, they wouldn't accept my legal, tax-paying name.

Well, that and it was a pretty vacuous experience.

Re: Nonplussed

#152
post #7

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm all for this change, largely because of the crappy anonymous comments you see out there on YouTube, which was the point of this transition in the first place. However, forcing Google+ onto people does have me wary as well. I don't mind using Google+, but it seems like Google's way to slowly worm their way into people using its social component. I admittedly am not sure why i…

> I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm all for this change, largely because of the crappy anonymous comments you see out there on YouTube, which was the point of this transition in the first place. Up the number of characters you can have in a comment then and put some proper thread organisation in place. Regardless of what they hook it up to, there are limits to the depth of the conversations you can have in s…

I think it should be restrictive. There's no reason for youtube comments to have the depth of threaded forums. They're comments - they're supposed to refer to the video.

Re: Nonplussed

#153
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but you have option. like that fancy pants academic video? nice. thumbed up a silly cat video just to show someone later on your phone? too bad. its there now too.

It's very hard for me to imagine someone who wants to try so very hard to maintain a serious public image that they won't be caught liking a silly cat video on YouTube. That seems hilariously self-important.

>It's very hard for me to imagine someone who wants to try so very hard to maintain a serious public image that they won't be caught liking a silly cat video on YouTube. That seems hilariously self-important.

Eh, I think this idea that we must live our whole life in public (to the /same/ public using the /same/ identity) is a bit insidious. Especially in these days of "cultural fit" - it leads to this idea that you need to spend your private life in service of your professional life.

If you have an unpopular hobby or sexual proclivity, keeping that out of your professional life, in many circles, could be even seen as polite; At the office? nobody wants to know about your love for furry fan-fiction.

Sure, cute cat videos are different from furry fan fiction, but... if I'm "following" you? I will "unfollow" if there are a bunch of cute cat videos. I mean, unless I'm following you for your great taste in cute cat videos. More to the point, if I'm evaluating you and, say, your long screeds advocating a political cause I find particularly distasteful keep coming up, I might have a hard time evaluating you rationally, on your skills. (Also, if I'm hiring you, I want you to be able to leave the bullshit at home. Leaving the bullshit in another identity helps with that sort of thing.)

I really think that multiple identities is the solution. You can have your cute cat picture identity, your furry fan-fiction identity, your radical socialist identity, and your professional programmer identity. I can choose to follow the identity I find interesting. I mean, yeah, if someone /really wants/ to connect your furry fan-fiction identity to your professional programmer identity, they can. However, if you practice proper identity hygiene, it becomes much easier for me (or another third party) to interact with the professional programmer, without dealing with your hobbies I have no interest in, or maybe even find distasteful.

Most of the "real name" folks seem to think that by making everything public, we will see that we are all weirdos, and become more accepting of our differences.

I guess that's my prime problem with the 'real name' folks; I think that it's just fine to do business with, or even relate socially to folks that have hobbies or political views that I believe are downright wrong. I don't think that 'acceptance' is required for that. I think that you can like and trust one facet of a person's personality, without liking other facets of their personality.

I want to be able to say "I think this person is a great programmer" without implying that I also endorse their badly written Spock/Kirk slash fiction, or their half-baked anarcho-capitalist political rants.

Re: Nonplussed

#154
post #112
post #19

Experiences like this led me to leave Facebook, then LinkedIn, a while ago. I haven't deleted my Google+ account only because laziness and fear of an experience like the article's author prevent me from going to the site. People describe leaving as trendy, as if leaving had something to do with other people as opposed to the sites' own repellent behavior. For me leaving was easy and fun -- http://joshuaspodek.com/lea…

"Experiences like this led me to leave Facebook" I would go on a tangent to this, that I never got any actionable information or other life improvement from facebook. I tried, really hard, for six months, to participate and get something out of it, but it was just a huge time waster so I wiped it. Although supposedly youtube is only (or mostly) used for trash talking comments on kitten videos, I have occasionally got…

I also get a lot of value out of youtube videos. I am pretty careful about never being logged in to google except to do occasional maintenance/checking on my legacy email addres, so I don't worry too much about being tracked beyond my IP, and I never need to leave comments anyway.

I'm learning a few instruments, and I find a lot of instructors use youtube for that. (Although I'm finding I prefer instructors' vimeo videos when they do it that way.) Some of them are very good. As long as youtube lets me view without logging in, I'm happy. I'll react in some rational way if they change that.

Re: Nonplussed

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really psyched about Tent ( https://tent.io/ ) as an alternative model. If people start to build apps around it, the promise is a system that puts storage and sharing into the hands of the user, not the provider.

Friggin' awesome. I have been thinking of a way to do social media but strictly under your own control, on your own server (until you decide to share something). It sounds like that's what these guys are doing. Still, people like stranger-to-stranger social media as well, like with Instagram. I suppose that functionality will always lie with a third party, since no privacy can be assumed in that case.

I think the way you would do this on Tent is that you would choose from many CMS apps capable of editing your blog post type (presumably, these apps will spring up as the ecosystem matures). While you're still crafting the post, you can set its sharing permissions such that no one else can see it. Perhaps you want to share it with individuals before you go public.

One way to publish it would be to have your front-end platform act as a subscriber to posts with some type of "published" flag. This sort of paradigm would be amenable to having multiple aggregators acting as the front-ends for syndicating content.

Comments on your posts would themselves be Tent posts, created by readers and hosted in their own Tents. Readers could have some of their conversations on your content publicly, but could also @-mention other users by Tent Entity URL to have private conversations within their social groups.

I really think the sky is the limit, because the system puts the data in the users' wheelhouses, and there can be all sorts of innovation in presentation and interactivity, decoupled with many of the concerns about storage.

Platforms could still monetize post content that they create and mediate, it's just that users would be able to choose the platforms that serve them best, rewarding those providers.

I think there's probably a lot of stuff to figure out still, but I'm very excited to see where this goes.

Re: Nonplussed

#156
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook was already doing a good job driving its own users away. All Google had to do was go under the Facebook tree, and pick up dropped users off the ground. It really didn't need to go climbing up the tree to pick them off the branches. As they're climbing the ladder, their own users are falling out of the baskets. Corny analogy aside, they're not even doing a good job integrating mail, youtube, google, google+.…

All we wanted from G+ was "Facebook, but not Facebook". That's it. That's all. They managed even to fuck that up.

Yeah, I remember two or three years ago there was a long bout of Facebook rage here, and I posted what I would like from Google as a replacement (under an earlier account). And G+ became almost exactly what I was wishing for, except they went out of their way to make it suck.

Re: Nonplussed

#157
post #19

Experiences like this led me to leave Facebook, then LinkedIn, a while ago. I haven't deleted my Google+ account only because laziness and fear of an experience like the article's author prevent me from going to the site. People describe leaving as trendy, as if leaving had something to do with other people as opposed to the sites' own repellent behavior. For me leaving was easy and fun -- http://joshuaspodek.com/lea…

I'm really psyched about Tent ( https://tent.io/ ) as an alternative model. If people start to build apps around it, the promise is a system that puts storage and sharing into the hands of the user, not the provider.

the second I read "build apps" I knew this is not even close to an alternative models.

the only alternative model is decentralized, encrypted and pseudonymous/anonymous. Maybe something along the lines of btsync, btchat mixed with pursuit [1].

[1]: http://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/PursuitWeb/

Re: Nonplussed

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonplussed is also used to mean "uninspired" or "unimpressed" - like when something is perhaps a little out of the ordinary [there is an expectation that it will have an impact one way or another] but still doesn't really have an effect on; almost exclusively in the phrase "I was pretty nonplussed by it all" or a close analogue of that. Certainly this is the usage I've heard and used for the last 20 years or so.

Those people are using it incorrectly.

Language is ultimately about usage. The dictionary I checked with confirmed this meaning as a US neologism, I'm in the UK.

You could class this usage as "perplexed" but with a specific flavour of 'perplexity at the unimpressive nature of the subject'.

Re: Nonplussed

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amazing thing was they managed to blow thirteen years' good will in about two months. All gone. When techies are seriously considering using Bing for search ... you know your brand's gone toxic. If they'd just backed off in the nymwars, WE'D ALL BE OVER THERE NOW. Fucksakes.

Just one data point here, but I effectively switched to Bing for search (actually, DDG, but they use Bing among other things to get their results). In all honesty, I think that google's results are slightly better, especially when it comes to technical type of searches (maths, statistics, academic papers, etc..), but for the most common types of searches, DDG does just fine. Reasons for the switch? I was getting a bi…

The nice thing about DDG is that it's extremely easy to use the DDG browser interface to search google if you decide to do so.

In Firefox, if you have DDG as your default search:

  ctrl-k (next thing you type will be a search)
  !g     (A DDG "bang code," in this case "search google")
   whatever (this search will be sent to google)
!g whatever, and you're sent to a google search result page. Bonus, you get a better results page URL than google usually gives you.

DDG gets better and better every day. I noticed recently that if you search for a street address DDG gives you a map result from open street map, and gives you links to bing, mapquest, google maps and open street map. It's great.

And btw the DDG bang code for google maps is "!gm" and the bang code for google news is "!gn".

Re: Nonplussed

#160
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonplussed is also used to mean "uninspired" or "unimpressed" - like when something is perhaps a little out of the ordinary [there is an expectation that it will have an impact one way or another] but still doesn't really have an effect on; almost exclusively in the phrase "I was pretty nonplussed by it all" or a close analogue of that. Certainly this is the usage I've heard and used for the last 20 years or so.

That usage is incorrect. It's another case of a word misinterpretation taking over the historical meaning. It's from the Latin "non plus" meaning no further.

I'm not sure why you note the Latin etymology, that would tend more towards the neologistic definition IMO.

Like "no more?" as in "isn't there anything else to it?". I don't see how "no more" suggests being flummoxed/confounded. [Yes I know that's not how "logo-genesis" works]

Post reply on HN