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

On Technical Writing

arturdryomov.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: On Technical Writing

#21

Post by jerf »

BossingAround wrote: post #16
jpxw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.” ~ Socrates

In case you're wondering why you're being downvoted, the quote seems to be fake [1]. The picture that sometimes go with it, [2], is fake as well. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave/ [2] https://imgur.com/jwSls6X

The other stupid thing about that supposed quote is that the presumption that he must have been wrong may not be justified. Socrates is thought to have lived 470-399BC. By the end of that lifetime, it would have been obvious to an impartial observer that Athenian power was fading; another generation or two later and Athens was no longer an independent power.

Yeah, it seems like the previous generation is always upset about the next generation, but they're not always wrong. Humanity has survived, sure, but most of the civilizations those sentiments were coming from haven't.

Re: On Technical Writing

#22

Post by BossingAround »

jerf wrote: post #21
BossingAround wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're wondering why you're being downvoted, the quote seems to be fake [1]. The picture that sometimes go with it, [2], is fake as well. [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave/ [2] https://imgur.com/jwSls6X

The other stupid thing about that supposed quote is that the presumption that he must have been wrong may not be justified. Socrates is thought to have lived 470-399BC. By the end of that lifetime, it would have been obvious to an impartial observer that Athenian power was fading; another generation or two later and Athens was no longer an independent power. Yeah, it seems like the previous generation is always upset…

That's an interesting observation. I wonder whether a falling empire correlates to children misbehaving at schools.

I wonder whether studies were done on it in Britain or Spain, both of which you could say had empires which collapsed (though this did not threaten their whole existence).

Re: On Technical Writing

#23

Post by jerf »

BossingAround wrote: post #22
jerf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other stupid thing about that supposed quote is that the presumption that he must have been wrong may not be justified. Socrates is thought to have lived 470-399BC. By the end of that lifetime, it would have been obvious to an impartial observer that Athenian power was fading; another generation or two later and Athens was no longer an independent power. Yeah, it seems like the previous generation is always upset…

That's an interesting observation. I wonder whether a falling empire correlates to children misbehaving at schools. I wonder whether studies were done on it in Britain or Spain, both of which you could say had empires which collapsed (though this did not threaten their whole existence).

To be clear, I'm not claiming that it does correlate... I'm only saying that you can't be sure it doesn't. It could be a selection effect, in that while it is said by everyone everywhere, we only hear from people in their cultural prime, which is just before the collapse. On the other hand, it may not be something everyone everywhere says, and it may be something that is mostly said by people in collapsing empires, in which case, it may very well be a true observation.

My main claim would just be that we don't have enough data to cite this quote (were it real) in mockery, as it is not quite as obviously wrong as it may seem from the very casual view of history.

Re: On Technical Writing

#24

Post by maxerickson »

baby wrote: post #20
ghaff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malcolm Gladwell also cherry picks research findings and observations and uses them to support some narrative. He's an excellent writer. I'm just not sure how much credence I put in many of his conclusions. I agree with your points about blogging generally though. I've sort of gotten away from doing short/casual stuff in favor of articles for pubs. This isn't entirely a bad thing as I get more reach that way but it m…

> Malcolm Gladwell also cherry picks research findings and observations and uses them to support some narrative I'm mixed about this. I feel like this critic is true for any book. Books are not research papers.

When a book is presented as a popularization of science, it's reasonable to expect that it is evenhanded with the evidence that is available when it is written.

Gladwell would probably end up making his books stand up better to criticism without making them any less interesting. It's fun to read about how much practice talented people have done. The problem is when you distill that down to a soundbite that sounds like a conclusion.

Re: On Technical Writing

#25

Post by soonerroadie »

kristianc wrote: post #5

> There were no recommendation engines of course so I went through everything, itching to consume experiences left behind by humanity. Sounds like an addiction, right? Well, it kinda was. Well, there kind of were. I doubt you would end up reading The Hobbit, The Three Musketeers and Sherlock Holmes purely by accident. The idea that the best content bubbling to the top of the popular consciousness is merely a product…

Of course there were recommendation engines - they were called librarians.

Re: On Technical Writing

#26

Post by minblaster »

coldtea wrote: post #17
rlayton2 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, what a weird statement by the article's author. My kids love reading books. They don't read on screens much, it has to be a book.

> what a weird statement by the article's author I can never understand this reasoning. The statement by the article's author covers 80% or more of kids, who mostly don't read (and 90% or more reads zero to one book a year). It's like someone noting that "people have one nose" and somebody arguing, "This is such a weird statement to make, my neighbour, who was on a traffic accident, has none"! Extreme Outliers (1-2%)…

Yep, many think their single n=1 counterexample dismantles the truth of a general trend.

Especially when they fail to realize the selection bias of their commenting on a forum for curiosity-driven technology enthusiasts.

Re: On Technical Writing

#28

Post by voidhorse »

This article, like many on “technical writing” conflates techincal writing and writing about technology. In my estimation, they’re two different things.

Technical Writing is a profession with a massive set of practices, relatively well-prescribed goals, and a long history. It’s a discipline that has almost nothing to do with Stephen King and Strunk and White—though of course these sources might be applied. Chances are, if you were to ask an professional technical writer about resources for technical writing, they’d point you to a few text books on technical communication or papers or blog posts from people in the industry. Technical writing also has serious consequences. If a manual for a missile has mistakes, it could cost thousands of dollars or thousands of lives. Stephen King’s advice isn’t quite as helpful in such perilous situations.

Writing about technology, I think, is closer to what the author is actually pursuing here—and most tech blogs better fit this classification than technical writing. Writing about technology is more free form, more whimsical, full of opinion, intimations of possible approaches or solutions but not hardened proceedural documentation.

It might seem a bit pedantic to make such a distinction, but I would really love it if more people honored it. For instance, this article was a bit of false advertising, since I thought it’d be about technical writing in the professional sense (i.e. writing documentation) and not about writing about technology in a more casual, opinionated way. It’s similar to the distinction between programming and software engineering—they’re quite distinct pusuits, even though the tools and techniques considered overlap.

Re: On Technical Writing

#29

Post by herodotus »

I am surprised that someone who claims to have been an avid reader writes so poorly. Consider, for example,

"Fast-forward to the last year of school. I’ve started writing. It was nothing special really, short fictional stories there and there."

The author's tense is muddled, and I have no idea what "there and there" means. Better would be

"Fast-forward to my last year of school. I started writing. It was nothing special really, just some short stories."

There were a few instances where the author should have used "I" rather than "I've". In fact, I would encourage this author to avoid such contractions altogether.

The goal of writing at least one article a month is laudable, but this author should work on writing craft fundamentals. Perhaps a book like The Elements of Style would help. Even better would be a tutor or coach.

Re: On Technical Writing

#30

Post by tonystubblebine »

baby wrote: post #20
ghaff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malcolm Gladwell also cherry picks research findings and observations and uses them to support some narrative. He's an excellent writer. I'm just not sure how much credence I put in many of his conclusions. I agree with your points about blogging generally though. I've sort of gotten away from doing short/casual stuff in favor of articles for pubs. This isn't entirely a bad thing as I get more reach that way but it m…

> Malcolm Gladwell also cherry picks research findings and observations and uses them to support some narrative I'm mixed about this. I feel like this critic is true for any book. Books are not research papers.

I watched his Master Class and at no point does he even mention getting it right as a goal. His writing tips are only about making it interesting, memorable and shareable.

IMO, he's breaking the Spiderman rule of morality, "With great power comes great responsibility."

He's putting out intellectual versions of fraudulent ear worms without any sense of responsibility.

Post reply on HN