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

Be careful of who you work for

sethgodin.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#41

Post by netcan »

fallentimes wrote: post #39
Alex3917 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think that purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, the dip, sheepwalking, etc. are very important ideas. It's just that the words Seth chooses to represent these ideas kind of suck. What Seth calls an ideavirus is the same thing that Dawkins calls a meme, and that's a word we pretty much use every day. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future someone else coined a word that meant the same thi…

You can express ideas without creating ridiculous buzz words. And like I said, sometimes the creation of a new word (e.g. meme, kool-aid) is necessary, but not at the rate consultants and marketers do it. They're just marketing.

I agree with you to an extent. Seth tends to irritate me a little personally. But he is good at getting his ideas out there. Not just his name, his ideas & concepts. The tool he uses to achieve this is what you call buzzwords, which by definition are words that resonate to an extent & make it into people's vocabulary & thought processes.

'Meme' vs 'ideavirus' will suffice as an example. 'Meme' will not be used by the same people to have the same thoughts as 'ideavirus'. I hope we can agree on that (the discussion would be cumbersome). It flat wouldn't. The words have different connotations & usages even if they can be defined exactly the same way in a dictionary. Just like your usage of 'buzzword' has a different connotation to 'vogue word' & 'technical term' has a different connotation to 'jargon'. Ergo, it is a powerful tool for communication.

Inserting words into people's vocabulary changes the way they think. It is useful even if there is already an existing word with the same formalised meaning.

As I said I agree with you to an extent. There is nothing worse then watching marketing attempts to create a lexicon flop. It is something that can become polluted very quickly.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#42

Post by lacker »

baha_man wrote: post #22
tomsaffell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's neither. Both end the sentence in a preposition, 'for'. If you want to be accurate (which I guess you do, since you posted) then it is "for whom you work".

http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/plainenglish/writingm... "Here are seven non-rules imposed on writers that can be safely discarded... (3) You must not end a sentence with a preposition."

I wish that had said:

"Prepositions are okay to end sentences with."

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#43

Post by 13ren »

michaelneale wrote: post #35
gwsaines wrote: post #29

I'm not entirely sure why everyone is always hating on Seth. His blog posts are hit or miss, but that doesn't mean he's an arsehole.

Whilst I agree with your point, I am shocked at your courage to attempt to use the English spelling of "arsehole" in the internet. Haven't seen it written that way for too long a time ! I find myself giving up and using American spelling and terms. Even Firefox doesn't know how to spell, despite me telling my OS many times my locale to an alarming level of detail.

I think you're right, that it's simply US vs. British spelling, but I've always felt that the usage is slightly different (and that therefore maybe they are actually different words...).

An asshole seems to be someone you are angry with (legitimately or not). It's about behaviour (or perception thereof); but to call someone an arsehole is a darker, earthier insult, and is closer to what they intrinsically are. It seems more literal to me.

Maybe this is because I've mostly heard "asshole" on sanitized TV; but I've heard "arsehole" in uncensored RL.

PS: Firefox then spellchecked in a way that was almost but not quite entirely unlike British English.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#44

Post by 13ren »

I found this article thought-provoking (which is the best kind): it's about how we see.

Our point of view is affected by where we are; and the lens through which we see is affected by the people around us, what aspect they pay attention to, and their values. Because the way we see is so fundamental to verification, changes in it can be insidious - and changes to values are often virtually undetectable.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#45

Post by michaelneale »

13ren wrote: post #43
michaelneale wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I agree with your point, I am shocked at your courage to attempt to use the English spelling of "arsehole" in the internet. Haven't seen it written that way for too long a time ! I find myself giving up and using American spelling and terms. Even Firefox doesn't know how to spell, despite me telling my OS many times my locale to an alarming level of detail.

I think you're right, that it's simply US vs. British spelling, but I've always felt that the usage is slightly different (and that therefore maybe they are actually different words...). An asshole seems to be someone you are angry with (legitimately or not). It's about behaviour (or perception thereof); but to call someone an arsehole is a darker, earthier insult, and is closer to what they intrinsically are . It se…

That sounds reasonable to me, it does seem darker in the British usage.

Also - in US English, you could call someone an "ass" - its not really that bad an insult, like you said, more about their behaviour at a point in time. There is also the donkey meaning (ass) which makes it less insulting then it would otherwise be.

Re: Be careful of who you work for

#46

Post by 13ren »

michaelneale wrote: post #45
13ren wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, that it's simply US vs. British spelling, but I've always felt that the usage is slightly different (and that therefore maybe they are actually different words...). An asshole seems to be someone you are angry with (legitimately or not). It's about behaviour (or perception thereof); but to call someone an arsehole is a darker, earthier insult, and is closer to what they intrinsically are . It se…

That sounds reasonable to me, it does seem darker in the British usage. Also - in US English, you could call someone an "ass" - its not really that bad an insult, like you said, more about their behaviour at a point in time. There is also the donkey meaning (ass) which makes it less insulting then it would otherwise be.

Yes - the donkey meaning. I think actual donkeys might also have been more common in the USA.
Post reply on HN