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

No Hello

nohello.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 256 posts

Re: No Hello

#171

Post by stevage »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #139
stevage wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm you're actually selling we on why this can be useful. They are gaining information in the exchange, like how available you are, how willing to help etc.

Or just trying to trap you into a synchronous interaction on their terms, pressuring you to give them your full attention and respond immediately. They send their "Hi", and go do other stuff. You eventually respond with "hi", and they immediately reply with the request. At this point, they know you're around and saw their message - you just replied to their "hi". And you know they know , and also they know you know t…

That kind of thing tends not to work on me, because if I do reply "hi", I usually then get distracted, and don't reply to the next message for many hours. So they quickly learn it's better to just ask the question straight up.

Re: No Hello

#172

Post by croes »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #83
croes wrote: post #69

> you're actually just making the other person wait Where is the problem? Just do what you did until the question pops up? It’s not a phone call, remember ?

So you got e-prodded in the head - what's the problem? simply wait for the person to ask their question. (Fingers crossed they don't expect a response before continuing - if it turns out that they do, just spend some time waiting, distracted, and then prod them back to get them moving). This site is saying "don't poke people in the head and then wait for them to ask you why you did that before continuing. It's detrim…

Are people so easily distracted? I skim the message popup for a real question, otherwise I ignore it. Cost half a second, takes nothing from my flow.

Re: No Hello

#173

Post by JdeBP »

mariusor wrote: post #150
mafuy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misses, sure. But it should be quite rare that the order is wrong. It would only happen if the route changes.

Eh, comedic posts should probably be allowed some leeway in their attempt at being funny.

Especially as it's impossible to tell whether jvanderbot's "people" datagram got dropped by some intermediate hop in the UDP version or was never sent. (-:

Re: No Hello

#174

Post by jabroni_salad »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #143
dosnem wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you do it because if you just ask the question you get ignored but if you say hello and get a response ppl are less likely to ignore the second question. Thats the bigger reason than any rudeness reason i would think.

This. The selfish point (there are other points too) of "hi" is to confirm you have their attention and to remove plausible deniability of "oops I missed your message."

I would be okay with this if the conversation actually demanded a realtime response. But I can't know that until I see the actual first message, and they usually don't.

Re: No Hello

#175

Post by JdeBP »

jvanderbot wrote: post #168
mafuy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misses, sure. But it should be quite rare that the order is wrong. It would only happen if the route changes.

Or, does "Alexa, add peanut butter to shopping list" fall under the UDP frame size? Joke reversed.

Your wife is possibly wondering why you send everything cleartext in one single frame and don't do challenge-response or any sort of state machine resynchronization between client and server. (-:

Re: No Hello

#176

Post by OkayPhysicist »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #146
JimDabell wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly what’s rude about it. Don’t make sure you have their attention. Just send the actual message. If it’s urgent enough that the actual message isn’t enough, “Hello” isn’t going to cut it either.

That's only rude sometimes. We don't typically talk to other people in real life without confirming their attention (e.g. via eye contact) first.

That's because we're communicating synchronously in person. If you say something when I'm not listening to you, I will probably start listening midway through your statement, and miss potentially vital info. In a slack message, I can just read it again.

Re: No Hello

#177

Post by rufus_foreman »

giarc wrote: post #136

It's funny to see this here. I manage a large team and just the other day had to deal with irate employees who are arguing over whether they should be saying "Good morning" to each other when they come into the office. One employee thinks it should almost be "mandatory" to greet each other, where the other employee says she isn't in the headspace to be greeting people early in the morning and would rather get settled…

>> the other employee says she isn't in the headspace to be greeting people early in the morning and would rather get settled at her desk

Uh-oh. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

Re: No Hello

#178

Post by TOGoS »

mariusor wrote: post #95
SirFatty wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some people are TCP. Some are UDP." Nailed it! This is going up on the wall in my office.

> are UDP. some :P

That's why you put enough context in each packet that nobody gets confused if the order changes or some get missed.

Re: No Hello

#179

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #157
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when you put it like that, sending 'hello' back might be the best thing you could do. They sent you a SYN, you send back and ACK, then the real conversation can begin. I suddenly no longer agree with TFA. This makes way more sense to me in this light.

In what way is that better than "Hello. How do I do x?" If they never reply, that's of no practical difference from just sending "Hello" and not getting a reply. In TCP, it's useful because it happens in a different layer of abstraction. Even then, QUIC was developed (partly) because it was realised there's no point waiting for the full SYN / SYN ACK / ACK before starting some of the higher-level exchange (although t…

It's better because X might take a while to write correctly, and you might want some assurance that you have the other person's full attention first before you even send that message. It's a commitment mechanism of sorts.

Re: No Hello

#180

Post by jabroni_salad »

stevage wrote: post #37
bonoboTP wrote: post #16

I see this more often when someone desires synchronous, multi-turn interaction, not simply "when is that thing starting again?". Things where they aren't exactly sure how to ask the question so they want to rely on you asking questions back and then together zeroing in on the solution of some issue.

Hmm you're actually selling we on why this can be useful. They are gaining information in the exchange, like how available you are, how willing to help etc.

Why are we playing a game of informational asymmetry? Are we at war? Do they want to seize my oil?

"The Initech account is totally on fire, can you look at it?"

Yes let us save the day in jolly cooperation.

"Did you see that ludicrous display last night?"

You can wait until im done with my current thing.

"hey."

If I respond, they will wrongly believe I am available and willing. It is morally correct to ghost them.

Post reply on HN